If David Horsey's recent cartoon on the SCHIP issue was an obnoxious form of the non sequitur debate unfolding on the topic, yesterday's Seattle Times editorial was a more temperate stroll down the same errant path.
The Times assesses that based on President Bush's position, the health care initiative "appears to be of little significance to this administration, which has had its guns out for SCHIP. New federal restrictions have stymied efforts to grow the program."
This is an odd conclusion since the President said we would gladly sign, and indeed encouraged, a straight reauthorization of the program, including additional funding to cover low-income children not yet participating in the program.
I'm no legal expert about to weigh in on the merits of the regulatory issues and related lawsuit by several states, covered by the Times earlier this week. Yet that same article included a chart revealing that over 70% of kids still lacking health coverage across the country fall under the 250% of poverty line that is not in dispute for the provision of government assistance (covering kids up to 400% of poverty, or almost $83,000 in annual family income, is). In their eagerness to raise the bar of who should be covered, states have not done an adequate job of enrolling kids who are already eligible.
Given the political impasse it's possible both sides may rue the machinations that got everyone to this point. Who knows. Yet it remains clear, if even a basic level of inquiry is conducted, that both sides of the debate actually agree on the importance of making sure kids who come from legitimately low-income homes have health care coverage.
The debate all along has been about where to draw the line between who constitutes the working poor and who constitutes the middle class. Continued insinuations that disagreements about the scope of who is covered imply one side would be perfectly happy with lots of sick kids or would be content to leave low-income children without health care coverage is beyond ridiculous.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 06, 2007 09:53 AM | Email ThisYes. That is true of ALL sides of the debate, not BOTH. :-)
The debate all along has been about where to draw the line between who constitutes the working poor and who constitutes the middle class.
Yes, unfortunately, the debate has barely touched on whether or not the federal government (let alone government at all) is the proper (let alone constitutional) agent of this health care funding.
Continued insinuations that disagreements about the scope of who is covered imply one side would be perfectly happy with lots of sick kids or would be content to leave low-income children without health care coverage is beyond ridiculous.
Yes, but this is true even for people who think SCHIP should be abolished. Even IF Bush believed, as I do, that SCHIP should not be expanded, and is unconstitutional, and should be eventually abolished, it does not follow that he (or I) want sick kids. It's a terrible and stupid fallacy regardless.
NO ONE would be happy with lots of sick kids, or leaving poor kids without health care, even the people who want to abolish all government health care programs. It is all about how the care to those kids should be provided: morally, legally, efficiently, practically.
Posted by: pudge on October 6, 2007 11:11 AM"NO ONE would be happy with lots of sick kids, or leaving poor kids without health care, even the people who want to abolish all government health care programs. It is all about how the care to those kids should be provided: morally, legally, efficiently, practically."
Now the question is how to do this. Does Bush or any of the candidates have any proposals as to how this is to be done. Many of us who want kids cared for are really not tied to this particular piece of legislation, it is more how is the result to be achieved?
Posted by: WVH on October 6, 2007 12:34 PMYou don't want sick kids or poor kids to be without health insurance. How is this done? By the way, when people were making fun of Bush for his marriage proposal, I supported it. Not because I wanted people forced into crappy marriages, but the optimum situation for raising kids is a two parent family. There are too many children being raised in situations with parents who "hooked-up", are "financee" (that doesn't mean what it use to, often it involves people in a longer term hook-up who will not marry even though the have kids together) or "uncle or aunt" status. The foster care situation is a mess and until, hopefully, the culture changes to support children brought into this world by married parents or at least at the minimum by parents in committed stable relationships there will be poor kids that don't have advocates for them. They need some type of support in education and health care. I don't think that many supporters of helping poor kids are tied to any particular piece of legislation, we just just want something done. Pubbies or dems, how do you protect these kids?
Posted by: WVH on October 6, 2007 01:09 PMLook, where is the virtue in a forced gift? Taxes are forced. "Giving" to the poor via taxes therfore can not be a virtuous act for the taxpayer. It is also not supported by any provision in the constitution, especially not the "general welfare" clause, which only prohibits giving to special interests, and does not authorize doing anything that can be construed to be in the general welfare.
Finally, government welfare programs are less efficient, and less effective than private programs. If we leave more money untaxed, and in the hands of the private sector, there will be more money available to private charities to help the poor. Also, taxation slows the economy, and raises unemployment. The poor are harder hit than the rich in times of economic downturn.
If you REALLY care about the poor, instead of just appearing to care about the poor, then you want lower taxes and less government regulation. If you really care about the poor, then give to a private charity. But don't attempt to force others to support your cause via the law. Gandhi would never have approved of that approach.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 6, 2007 01:42 PM"Gregoire announced this week that Washington would join a handful of other states in suing the federal government over the issue."
Look, Gregoire, health insurance is in the hands of the states now. Instead of blaming Bush, how about taking some heat in an election year and getting a state health insurance program going?
What? That would take real work and you're on your nap? Ok, Olympia -- go back to bed...
While we're at it, shouldn't we get the government out of our roads, schools, utilities, and security too?
Posted by: Nancy on October 6, 2007 02:13 PMWell, gee, Eric. Once upon a time, I would have thought it was beyond ridiculous to suggest that one of our major political parties would actually favor losing a major war simply in order to score political points. But times change, don't they? Your bipartisan goodwill is charming, but outdated.
Posted by: TB on October 6, 2007 02:23 PM1. I am not as familar with Gandhi's writings as I am with Dr. King. Do you have a specific cite from Gandhi's writings regarding how he felt about the poor and what duties are owed to them?
2. Do you personally volunteer and give to charity? What percentage of your income? The Hoover study is very interesting, the faith-based community are the biggest givers in amount and percentage. Secular progressives, liberals, and libertarians aren't holding up their end of the social bargin.
So, do you walk your talk, otherwise STFU about what I appear to do.
Posted by: WVH on October 6, 2007 02:42 PMhttp://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/08/07/sinking-schip/
Relevant facts:
The bill would massively expand government health coverage to include 90% of children who are currently already privately insured.
71% of the children in the U.S. would be eligible for taxpayer subsidized medical care, including those in the country illegally.
Families of four making up to $83,000 would receive government healthcare coverage practically free.
It is a sneaky step towards nationalized healthcare, which failed as Hillarycare the first time around during the Bill Clinton presidency.
The expansion in the House version raises the age eligibility to 24 and would create a $72.9 billion deficit over the next 10 years. The House version would limit the program to those living at 200% of the poverty level, although for some that would increase to 250%.
Government shouldn't be in the business of providing healthcare. We should be encouraging people to become self-sufficient, not becoming more and more dependent upon government services.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 6, 2007 02:44 PMWhat kind of parents would let their own children go without medical care as some sort of protest against Bush's veto? What kind of parents think it is not their primary responsibility to pay for food, clothing, shelter and medical care for their own families. Hint - brainwashed drones, fodder for socialism, Hillary voters, too much of the population of Seattle.
I'm afraid Hillary is likely to win, following which we may see the same sort of cartoon showing a starving child told by his parents there is no food for him because the GOP fillibustered the bill to give all children free federal meals.
1. I think we can all agree that morons shouldn't have children, but many morons do So, do we support child labor and make the children of morons get jobs at three and pay for the education and schooling. You said:
"Government shouldn't be in the business of providing healthcare. We should be encouraging people to become self-sufficient, not becoming more and more dependent upon government services."
Guess what, in a perfect world where children have parents like you, this would be a great idea. Some children don't have parents like you, their parents are morons. So, is it tough luck, the kid suffers?
2. I am not focused on this particular piece of legislation, is there a principle that children in need should be educated and have adequate health care, no matter how that occurs.
3. This is an interesting study from the Hoover
Institute:
FEATURES:
Religious Faith and Charitable Giving
By Arthur C. Brooks
"Giving and volunteering, by the numbers
How do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their "civic behavior," including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey.
From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as "religious" are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call "secular" report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to "religious causes" or "non-religious charities" over the previous 12 months. Across the whole population, 81 percent gave, while 57 percent volunteered.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
Socioeconomically, the religious and secular groups are similar in some ways and different in others. For example, there is little difference between the groups in income (both have average household incomes around $49,000) or education level (20 percent of each group holds a college degree). On the other hand, the secular group is disproportionately male (49 percent to 32 percent), unmarried (58 percent to 40 percent), and young (42 to 49 years old, on average). In addition, the sccbs data show that religion and secularism break down on ideological lines: Religious people are 38 percentage points more likely to say they are conservative than to say they are liberal (57 percent to 19 percent). In contrast, secular people are 13 points more likely to say they are liberal than to say they are conservative (42 percent to 29 percent).
It is possible, of course, that the charity differences between secular and religious people are due to these nonreligious socioeconomic differences. To investigate this possibility, I used a statistical procedure called probit regression to examine the role of religious practice in isolation from all other relevant demographic characteristics: political beliefs, income (and hence, indirectly, the tax incentives for giving), education level, gender, age, race, marital status, and area of residence. The data show that if two people -- one religious and the other secular -- are identical in every other way, the secular person is 23 percentage points less likely to give than the religious person and 26 points less likely to volunteer.
Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics. Similarly, giving differences do not disappear when income is neutralized. This should not be particularly surprising, however, because the sccbs data show practically no income differences between the groups. Furthermore, research on philanthropy has consistently shown that the poor tend to give more frequently -- and a higher percentage of their incomes -- than the middle class. For example, economist Charles Clotfelter and others have shown that the poor tend to give a proportion of their income to charity that is comparable to the giving proportion of the very wealthy -- and nearly twice that of the middle class.2 (This seems to be true only for the working poor, however. Welfare support appears to depress giving substantially.3)"
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html
So, for all you Libertarian and secularists out there, are you walking the talk?
Posted by: WVH on October 6, 2007 04:33 PMWhy don't you come up with a source of paying for this that doesn't cause the shutting down of the cigar industry in America and the millions of layoffs of cigar workers around the world.
I am not so much against this plan, just it's disgusting ill thought out massive taxing plan.
You want SCHIP, then belley up to the bar and have all Americans pay, instead of killing the Cigar Industry with it's massive and I do mean massive taxes on this industry.
You all claim to care about the poor, why don't you listen to what the cigar companies in the world are saying about this massive tax hike!
They will shut down and lay off millions of workers world wide!
I support the Veto until the tax plan is reworked.
Posted by: GS on October 6, 2007 07:58 PM1. Many people, like me, support the principle that children should have a good basic education and health care. I am not wedded to any particular piece of legislation.
2. Rudy and other candidates said the budget was in meltdown long before this particular piece of legislation. Perhaps if there less pork like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, some basic needs like education and health care could be met.
Posted by: WVH on October 6, 2007 11:20 PMDoes Bush or any of the candidates have any proposals as to how this is to be done.
I do not WANT any Presidential candidates to have any proposals to provide for health care of children, unless that proposal is "we're going to deregulate here and there to introduce more competition to lower costs."
Many of us who want kids cared for are really not tied to this particular piece of legislation, it is more how is the result to be achieved?
Work to reduce government welfare and the taxes taken to fund that welfare, so that we can handle it ourselves.
No Pudge while he writes missives did not answer how this is to be done.
WVH, that could not be more false. I've said it many, many times. And you've read it. I'll say it again: it should be done through private charities.
Bet you just love Dickens.
That's a disgusting ad hominem that is far beneath you, WVH, and it is a perfect example precisely of what Eric is talking about: you are saying that "disagreements ... imply one side would be perfectly happy with lots of sick kids or would be content to leave low-income children without health care ..."
Stanford's Hoover Insitute has done a good job on who gives to charity.
And none of that study is applicable to predicting who would give how much to charity if government left the charity business. Who gives how much is affected greatly by the fact that we have a government welfare system that takes thousands of dollars from us every year. If the government no longer did that, we'd see a change in the donation habits of Americans.
Still, even with what is given there still isn't going to be enough simply from private donations.
That prediction is simply without basis. It either ignores the fact that the government charity you want is already funded by private "donations," or it pretends that normal citizens are less enlightened than you and our elected officials and would not freely donate the money necessary.
Or, as Bastiat said:
The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.
I don't want to misstate your Libertarian philosophy, but it seems to be a combo of me-first and let's make sure the rules put me-first.
Regardless of your desire to not misstake the philosophy, you have done so, completely. Libertarianism is not about me. It is about liberty for everyone.
Gee, doesn't Ron Paul have a solution for hungry or sick kids?
Yes: let the people do it. When government gets OUT of the business of health care, it will be done more cheaply and better and more people will get care.
Guess in his and your universe maybe we could issue gun licenses and in your concept of charity they could charitably be shot and put out of their misery.
More disgusting mischaracterizations.
This solution is not so far-fetched, death squads and the police shoot poor kids in Brazil.
It may not be far-fetched, but it is absolutely antithetical to libertarianism. Poor kids are killed by governments in some countries BECAUSE the government has taken on responsibility for their care. What libertarianism says is that government should NOT take on such a responsibility. So you've got it backward: what you bemoan is the sometime result of a system completely opposite of libertarianism.
Sorry, I don't want to live in your world where you make fun of the homeless and can look the other way at starving kids.
You are once again disgustingly misrepresenting your opponents' views.
Charity! Yup, that's the ticket! Hey, wait a minute, why aren't all the kids already covered by charity??
Um. Why should all the kids be covered by charity? That doesn't make sense. Not all kids need to be covered by charity.
If you are talking about only kids who NEED care and are not getting it, the answer is self-evident. Each of us makes only so much money, and the government takes thousands from each of us. Imagine the good we could do in our own communities if we kept that money instead.
While we're at it, shouldn't we get the government out of our roads, schools, utilities, and security too?
That question makes no sense. The argument is about the proper function of government, and no one (except for the most ardent socialists and fascists, none of whom have any power in America) disputes that the law and government exist first and foremost to protect our rights to our person and property. So why would anyone say government should "get out of" security?
As to roads and utilities, I would like to see government less involved, but few would dispute that (local) government has a role in, at the very least, managing shared resources.
As to schools: yes, I want to abolish all government involvement in schools. The foremost reason why government is involved in schools is in order to indoctrinate children to follow the beliefs of the state. Of this, there is no rational dispute from any corner. I happen to agree with most of the beliefs of our state, but not all of them, but more to the point, I do not appreciate the attempt at indoctrination, and do not think this is a valid or profitable exercise of the power of government.
We've always had education widely available in this country, and today education is more widely available -- even apart from public schools -- than it has ever been before, at any time in our history. With extraordinary access to information from anywhere you happen to be, and with public contributions that would surely make up much of the slack once tax dollars no longer pay for it, there's no doubt in my mind that our educational system would be far better off without government-run schools.
Posted by: pudge on October 6, 2007 11:44 PMThe problem is, however, you ARE wedded to the idea of legislation.
Given the research of the Hoover Institute above, if you can figure out a way to encourage your libertarian pals and other secularists to give in the same proportion as the faith-based community, I think you have something. Many of them are as they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle. Your pal Bruce Gutherie says you have the solution, which is what, charity? So, do you have some concrete ideas regarding how children of morons are to be educated other than it is the personal responsibility of the parent, but what happens when parents aren't responsible? By the way, is the foster care system illegal in your opinion and if it is what should be done for children who have no responsible adult to care for them? Your idiol is your particular anti-government views which probably work well in an area the size of Vermont, but really aren't practical.
Posted by: WVH on October 6, 2007 11:54 PMAgain: that research is meaningless as a predictor of behavior in a system where government is not in the charity business. If government is no longer taxing us thousands of dollars to do charity on our behalf, then there's no telling what people will do with that money once it is left in their pocket.
Your pal Bruce Gutherie says you have the solution, which is what, charity?
As I have said many times now, yes. Now, I didn't elaborate: of course, there would be less NEED for charity if we got rid of government charity. People would be more likely to provide for themselves if government is not there to provide for them, and with more money in our own hands, the economy would improve such that more and better jobs would be available. But yes, the rest of the slack would be picked up by private charities.
So, do you have some concrete ideas regarding how children of morons are to be educated other than it is the personal responsibility of the parent, but what happens when parents aren't responsible?
There would still be free, or extremely inexpensive, schools available to children, run by philanthropists and charities. Bill Gates, for example, would give billions to schools (not that we can rely merely on him). They just wouldn't be run by the government anymore.
By the way, is the foster care system illegal in your opinion
I don't know much about that system. If it is run or paid for in any way by the federal government, then that is unconstitutional. I am not making the case that it is illegal for the state of Washington to run education, health care, or anything else: I am saying it is just bad policy. Federal = illegal. State = ill-advised.
Anyway, I see no reason the foster care system needs to be run by the state. Do you honestly think that people would not provide for children with no homes if the government didn't do it? That's the FIRST thing people would do with their money and time, is to help provide a place for these children to live. There's simply no way that we wouldn't provide for those children with private resources, if government wasn't doing it.
And of course, because government isn't doing it, those children would be much better off, because people donating their time and money directly would demand a high quality of service in return for their investment.
That said, if in some weird alternate reality those children were not being provided for, then I have no problem with the state stepping in. But that is not a reasonable liklihood.
Your idiol is your particular anti-government views
Nope. I have no such idol. My "idol," as it were, is liberty. It's not about being anti-government, but pro-liberty. You cannot be simultaneously free and not-free. You can have your freedoms limited in some cases, and that is, of course, necessary in any society. But where government is using force to take from Peter to give to Paul, that is not a limiting of liberty, but a theft of liberty. And it not only takes something from people that government has no right to take, making all of us less free, but it does so for no good reason.
I don't mean the intent is not good. For some, like you, the intent is good. But the end result is not good. The people -- including the people intended to be helped -- are not better off for it.
which probably work well in an area the size of Vermont, but really aren't practical.
You keep asserting that, but it isn't true. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It has worked for us in the past, and it is even easier to make work now that transportation and communication advances have made the country much "smaller."
Posted by: pudge on October 7, 2007 09:07 AMGet the government with their onerous forms, regulations and jumping hoops out of doctor's offices and healthcare will AGAIN be affordable.
Do you know your history? Are you old enough to remember when you went to your doctor or hospital and PAID CASH? I certainly do.
It wasn't until the advent of Medicare and Medicaid that it all changed... kind of like how we all got good public educations till the government stuck their dirty fingers in the midst of education. This government stench has gone so far to NOT ALLOW doctors to accept cash for services.
Insurance was originally a PERK offered to sweeten the pot and lure employees back when there were more jobs than people to fill them. That this government and greedy politicians have turned this into a false right is what put us on this path of exorbitant health costs.
YES, I absolutely believe we should go back to the time when we paid doctors, when THEY charged what they felt they were worth and when I could decide if indeed they were. I WANT a doctor who posts his prices for a Strep test, a Pap smear, a vaccination and a house call. And YES, I want to comparison shop his capabilities AND his prices.
I am sick to death of this hand holding, hand wringing nanny state making decisions for ALL simply because a few are too stupid or incapable of making their own.
I wonder how many of you mommy-government-please-hold-my-hand types will react when mommy government tells YOU what car to buy or limits your choices on banking, furniture, housing, shoes, make-up, soap, investments... There is NO DIFFERENCE: banking, furniture, housing, shoes, make-up, soap, investments education AND healthcare are all commodities and the users of those commodities are the only ones that should define their worth.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 11:21 AMThe Not So Poor Voice of SCHIP
On September 29th, 12 year old Graeme Frost of Maryland got to do the Democrats' radio address, in which he told his story of how he and his sister were seriously injured in a car accident, and if it hadn't been for SCHIP, they wouldn't be here today. So who is this 12 year old? The Baltimore Sun did a story on the family, in which it stated the family couldn't get health insurance through their work. But the article left out quite a few important, and interesting, bits of information, which Freeper, icwhatudo, managed to find while googling:
First, Mr. Halsey Frost, Graeme's father, owns his own woodworking design studio, Frostworks, so his claim that he can't get health insurance through work is shockingly deceptive. He chooses not to get health care for his family. Second, Graeme and his sister Gemma attend the very exclusive Park School, which has a tuition of $20,000 a year, per child. Third, they live in a 3,000+ square foot home in a neighborhood with smaller homes that are selling for at least $400,000.
Read the whole article... and someone get me a damned government price controlled Valium.
WVH, Pudge and I care about the well-being of the poor. We are just pointing out that big government programs don't tend to work to make the able poor better off. They breed dependancy and despair.
Poor people are better off with jobs than with welfare dependency. Poor people are better off in free market economies like the US, Australia, Ireland, Switzerland, Hong Kong, etc, than they are in more socialistic places like France and Germany. Did you know that unemployment in F and G is about double ours? We have about 4.5% unemployment and they have about 9% Their inflation rate is double ours and their economic growth rate is half ours.
This is important, because inflation hurts the poor more than the rich. The rich buy investment vehicles that are less prone to erosion due to inflation. The poor and middle class may have a little cash, and it erodes in value each year.
Economic growth helps the poor more than the rich. Why? Well, if you go from having $5 million to having $10 million, your lifestyle probably doesn't change that much. But if the economy grows, more of the poor go from being unemployed to being employed, or having their wages go up. This can make a huge difference in lifestyle.
European quazi-socialism is failing. If you really care about the poor, you want the free market.
Your ad-hominem attacks were really beneath you, my friend, so I will not respond to them. Do not assume that I am uncaring, just because I have a different solution to the problem than you do.
You might enjoy taking a non-Marxist economics course as well...
By the way, I'm a high school math and physics teacher. I've been a Special Olympics speed skating coach for the last 11 years. I am quite comfortable with the amount of my income I give to charity. I have spent countless hours organizing people to fight for individual rights, which I believe to be the key to personal well-being. My Libertarian campaigns all cost me money, and I had no expectation of winning. The purpose was to educate people about liberty and to build an alternative to the two-party duopoly.
I've done all of these things because I wanted to, out of a sense of passion and joy.
What a selfish bastard I am, eh?
Now let's stick to reasoned arguments about the issues, instead of cheap, personal attacks, shall we?
I'm pretty sure Pudge and I can kick your butt.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 7, 2007 11:29 AMThe bottom line is that if it is acceptable for a significant portion of the population to go without regular access to health care, then we don't need government involved (I trust that on principle you won't be using any of your Medicare benefits). Arguments that privatization will cut costs and increase access betray a complete lack of understanding about how the health care industry works. I'm not sure if it was meant as a caricature of these arguments, but equating a choice of soap to whether or not to test for a life threatening condition accurately describes the absurdity of this reasoning.
Posted by: Nancy on October 7, 2007 12:24 PM1. Whether you can kick my butt is immaterial,
Bruce Gutherie said this:
"If you REALLY care about the poor, instead of just appearing to care about the poor, then you want lower taxes and less government "
Now get off the bs about being personally offended. The fact of the matter avvording to the Hoover Study and if you have the research to dispute them is that faith-based people give more and they do so in the current system. Oh, I'm going to piss you off even more, I think you are a Dickinsonian weasel who needs Pudge to help him out because he is too lame to make his on case.
IF YOU CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE YOUR LIBERTARIAN AND SECULAR FRIENDS GUVE MORE, then guess what, you are correct, maybe legislation is not needed. Right now saying you care about poor kids is fairly worthless without figuring out how to take care of them. As your Texas friend, Ron Paul would say, you are all hat and no cattle.
2. Bruce Gutherie, where is your cite from Gandhi regarding his position on the poor?
3. Isn't it interesting that I have specifically limited my comments in two threads to how does one care for children who are poor and how does one give a good basic education to children. The knee jerk response from Messrs. Pudge, Ragnar, and Bruce G. is that I want to collapse the entire free market system. Other than charity, do you have a plan for these children other than they rely on the kindness of strangers? What makes you think that the people who are not currently volunteering will suddenly change their mind and start volunteering? What is it about your libertarian theories that would ever compel your adherents to give a dime? After all, it is their money, they could go to Europe or buy a Jag with the money they don't have to pay taxes on. Religious people give in the current context because their philosophy compels them to. There is nothing in your world of Ron Paulism to compel your followers to change their behavior, except now they can claim their taxes are too high.
Now, regarding the foster care system, the states with some federal assistance, which I take Pudge feels is illegal, took over because private resources were outstripped and there needed to be some controls. Admitedly, the state is not doing a good job in some instances. There are a lack of people, at this point, willing to be foster care givers. Children have to be moved outside of local areas to find placement. Private and religious agencies do some awesome work, but they rely on state assistance. So, what do you gentlemen propose to do for children without reponsible adults other than theorizing that if the government didn't support the acitivity, your libertarian friends and the secular population would be so happy their taxes were cut, they would give in a landslide? What exactly is your proof that that would occur, your lame theories?
4. Ragnar, you may be correct that back in the day the medical system was cash for services. I understand that there is a local medical
practice that is going back to that model. The problem is malpractice and high tec medical services. I know that Childrens and Swedish have some funds for indigent cases. Still, you haven't answered the question of how poor children are to be cared for?
I don't plan to vote for Hillary, but if you gentleman's philosphies regarding poor children represent the pubbies, I expect her to win in a landslide.
Posted by: WVH on October 7, 2007 12:36 PMOh gee: work hard, take care of yourself and SAVE MONEY.
Just like the good old days you are so quick to scorn.
How do you suppose folks did it back then when wages were lower and jobs far more scarce? You scoff at charities (such as the Catholic hospitals that helped (and STILL help) those in need then lobby for the biggest charity of all: OUR TAX DOLLARS.
The government has NO PLACE in health care outside of certifying that new drugs are indeed safe and managing dangerous ourbreaks with agencis like the CDC.
Life and charity does not exist in a vacuum. When the government gets the hell out I can guarantee MORE charitable organizations will step in.
Have you heard of The Shriners? Catholic Charities? St Judes? Each of those and dozens upon dozens others give aid to people that can't otherwise afford it. The damned government and attitude like yours make it too easy for people to be too LAZY to research OTHER ways in which they can be helped or in ways they can help themselves.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 12:45 PMHow many times in the last years have you heard local News programs informing people of bank accounts set up in the name of kids and others who have an emergy or a need?
You nanny-staters sure have a great big UNWARRANTED lack of faith in your fellow Americans.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 12:49 PMThe fact of the matter is that a disgusting government welfare system CREATED most of those "poor" children. It is an absolute fact that most "poor" children come from fatherless homes which is EXACTLY the the welfare system fomented.
Solve that problem of fatherless homes and you will go a long way to solving the "poor" children problem.
Stop telling women that it is acceptable to keep popping out babies from different fathers and not bother to be married to any of them. Stop deceiving them that having a mommy is just as good as having a mommy AND a daddy. Stop telling them "they can have it all" when in fact that when they are trying they are denying those "poor"children.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 01:07 PMTo sum up: if the working poor actually exist, which we deny, then they and their kids don't deserve access to health care.
Posted by: Nancy on October 7, 2007 01:21 PM"Here is what has been happening: In the 1950s, 80% of adults were married; today, roughly 50% are. Why? Partly because people are delaying marriage. Second, divorce rates have more than doubled since the 1960s as marriage evolved from a sacrament to a contract. Third, millions more cohabit before marriage. Fourth, births to unmarried mothers, white and black, have risen from 5% in 1960 to about 35% today."
"So the new American family is a household with fewer children, with both parents working, and with mothers giving birth to their children at an ever older age, having fewer children, and spacing them further apart."
"This is not good news. Twice as many married people indicate they are very happy as compared with those who aren't married. But it is the children who are most affected. The stable family of two biological parents - surprise, surprise! - turns out to be the ideal vessel for molding character, for nurturing, for inculcating values, and for planning for a child's future. Marriage, or the lack of it, is the best single predictor of poverty, greater even than race or unemployment."
"The result is a serious new divide in our society between the children of poorer, less educated, single parents and those of richer, better educated, and married parents. The married parents typically earn more than $75,000; in only 20% of cases do married parents with children earn less than $15,000."
"Children in mother-only families are more likely than those with two parents to be suspended from school, to have emotional problems, to become delinquent, to suffer from abuse, to take drugs, and to perform poorly on virtually every measure."
Marriage, or the lack of it, is the best single predictor of poverty, greater even than race or unemployment.
Bravo.
Your gold star is in the mail.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 01:29 PMWhere have you been?
WVH said the following at post 5:
. Ok Pudge,
You don't want sick kids or poor kids to be without health insurance. How is this done? By the way, when people were making fun of Bush for his marriage proposal, I supported it. Not because I wanted people forced into crappy marriages, but the optimum situation for raising kids is a two parent family. There are too many children being raised in situations with parents who "hooked-up", are "financee" (that doesn't mean what it use to, often it involves people in a longer term hook-up who will not marry even though the have kids together) or "uncle or aunt" status. The foster care situation is a mess and until, hopefully, the culture changes to support children brought into this world by married parents or at least at the minimum by parents in committed stable relationships there will be poor kids that don't have advocates for them. They need some type of support in education and health care. I don't think that many supporters of helping poor kids are tied to any particular piece of legislation, we just just want something done. Pubbies or dems, how do you protect these kids?
Posted by WVH at October 6, 2007 01:09 PM
Now, some kids have morons for parents, I think we can all agree on that. Do you like your pal, Bruce G propose the Dickinsonian solution. Sorry kid, you were born to the wrong family, you die of consumption and starvation?
Obviously, you can't read, because I have never said that people should have children they can't care for, but they do. The difference between me and Nancy and you and the 'rat pack" is that we realize that once children are here, no matter how they got here or who their parents are, they deserve a decent life. You and your pals are so focused on your list of "shoulds' that you really would throw the baby out with the bath water.
Posted by: WVH on October 7, 2007 01:38 PMWhy are you such a fan of compulsion? I'll bet you would support a benevolent dictatorship. Well, that way lies the Road to Serfdom. Read Hayek's work by that title some time. Well-meaning social engineers, trying to make the world better, implement planning. But planning requires control and control is exercised by force. Instead, the market best allocates resources because it depends on distributed knowledge of local conditions by people who are where the rubber meets the road. Central planners can never have enough information to allocate resources better.
Benevolent dictators are as rare in the history books as white rhinos in Alaska. Many of the do-gooders who think they will be benevolent dictators, wind up corrupted by power long before they make it to supreme leader. You are fuelling their type with your insistance that government dispose of your personal responsibility to care for the poor for you.
Well, Gandhi and I both know that you can NOT pawn off your personal responsibility on to government. We know that two wrongs do not make a right, and that the ends do not justify the means. You, however seem not to be aware of these truths.
Look, do you want to help the poor gain access to health insurance? Then give to a private non-profit, go to work for one, or better yet, found one. But don't attempt to force your neighbors to give money to a cause that you champion, no matter how noble. They have their own priorities for their money. It might be cancer research, people with developmental disabilities, etc. But for you to set yourself up as a dictator and tell them how much and where to spend their charitable efforts is un-Gandhian and fundamentally intolerant.
Gandhi knew that you could not force charity. Gandhi knew that true charity could only happen in small communities and face to face. Gandhi was skeptical of big government programs. He wanted to start small, even at the level of each individual soul.
YOU, WVH, on the other hand promote socialism and the use of force that is required to maintain it. You promote faceless, bureaucratic, utopian do-gooders who use force to maintain their own jobs and their own power. You have taken a shortcut that undermines your own goal.
Freedom is the path to prosperity for the poor. More government control of the economy will only deepen poverty, and erode our civil liberties.
Ragnar, John Galt and Pudge know the truth. Communism is a form of socialism. Naziism is a form of socialism. THAT is what you are advocating. Force. Loss of liberty. It's just plain evil, and I will fight against it until I die.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 7, 2007 01:41 PMThis is the ugliest and cheapest form of debate.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 01:42 PM1. Bruce G, do you have a specific cite from Gandhi? Please give me a quote that backs you up?
2. I am not a socialist, but I look for solutions to problems. Do you have research which says that your libertarian and secular pals will open up their wallets once the tax rate is either decreased or the tax is totally eliminated. Your solution to the problem of needy children is predicated on charity. Do you have facts to back up this theory?
3. Ragnar,
Looks like from your reponse, I may in your opinion be petty, but my assumptions are correct except the male part. I know some guys that are great thinkers and wouldn't make the lame arguments that you and the rat pack do. I have been a strong advocate of the traditional family and I believe the "Great Society" was a complete failure.
Now, this is probably going to piss you off. You and the "rat pack" are so inflexible that anything that in your mind even resembles a government program sends you off the deep end. I assume that you are equally outraged by the pork Rudi described in a recent speech. I assume that you are equally outraged by the GAO report of graft and corruption in contracts in Iraq, right?
Posted by: WVH on October 7, 2007 01:54 PMUsing your theory of condemnation by commonality of ideas, I assume you agree with Hillary that each kid should get 5 grand to start them on their way.
I assume you agree with Obama that wearing a US flag pin is meaningless.
I assume you agree with jefferson that its ok to keep illegal money in your freezer.
I assume you agree with Reid that waving a white flag does not demoralize the troops.
Gee, this game is sure fun... now I know why you play.
You are right about one thing: government boondoggles and the expected (by me) accepted (by you) abuse of power with other peoples money, namely my hard earned tax dollars.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 02:02 PMDo you see what's wrong with your hypothesis?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 02:06 PMDo you see what's wrong with your hypothesis?
I take it your answer is 'no, you don't see.
How very clever and ever so unexpected that you devolved into insults. /sarcasm
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 02:11 PMYou need to take your cash and pay your doctor to up your meds. Dude, you are acting girlie. We are talking about needy children and basic education, so your argument is not to answer any of my questions about Rudi and pork or the GAO report on Iraq? You girlie man, you. OK , I'll answer your stupid questions. I guess you assume all Black women are dems, I'm not, I'm an indie and I urge Blacks to become indies as well. We have permanent interests, not permanent alliances.
You said:
Using your theory of condemnation by commonality of ideas, I assume you agree with Hillary that each kid should get 5 grand to start them on their way.
No, this is a stupid idea. It is far better to have stable families that can take care of their own children.
I assume you agree with Obama that wearing a US flag pin is meaningless.
No, I have traveled widely and I am not giving up my US passport. I have no problem with wearing an American flag, I am proud of my country. But, ulitimately what each individual does is their choice. So, is it guilt by association and I am convicted for being Black on this one?
I assume you agree with jefferson that its ok to keep illegal money in your freezer.
As I have said many times before, a crook is a crook no matter their race, color, or creed. Throw them in jail. By the way, Blacks in Newark and Gary have not benefited from corrupt dem machines. If you are a crook, you go to jail, period. Careful, Ragnar, your bigotry is showing.
I assume you agree with Reid that waving a white flag does not demoralize the troops.
Obviously, you can't read. I supported the Iraq war, what went wrong was the troop surge should have been at the beginning to stabilize the society and give a government a chance to form. Rumsfeld tried to do the war on the cheap and this is the consquence of that decision. Also, Bremmer made a decision to get rid of all Baathists and some should have been retained. Fighting Islamofacists is the next 100 year war.
Goodness, my assumptions about you were totally correct.
2nd of all, if they have a child and they are so poor they have to choose food over anything else they are probably or should be availing themselves of FREE CLINICS where the dysplasia, of which it is well known may exhibit absolutely NO SYMPTOMS, would easily be found when the doctor manipulates the limbs. Said clinic can then easily refer them to agencies who can get them further care.
And there is the problem with your hypothesis. You want to sit back and WAIT for someone to rescue you, to devine then supply your "needs". I advocate doing for yourself. Not everyone has resources to actually "do" for themselves but they sure as hell are capable of pro-actively finding the help they need.
I know a family in which Mom has severe diabetes and Dad has life threatening heart problems. Luckily they have a happy and healthy child. These young folks live in a free trailer... in exchange for the opportunity to improve it and eventually own it. These young people work for minimum wage and menial jobs yet they have FOUND the agencies to help them with their dire medical needs. They have utilized the resources of the library, of their church, of their family and friends to find themselves the help they need. They are proud that they "own" their problems AND the solutions.
I'd rather see people like that that say "Can you help me find a way up" than folks like you that whine "Help! I've fallen and I can't get up
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 02:38 PMIf there are enough free clinics to cover the millions of children without insurance, why do we need SCHIP? And who's paying for all these clinics?
Posted by: Nancy on October 7, 2007 02:50 PMI'll take it as fact that the positions you are claiming are indeed the ones you proclaimed in the past. While I'm spending todays rainy afternoon alternately being enraged and entertained, I was gone most of September enjoying Europe. In as much as you seem to expect us to memorize and remember your every word, I have to wonder, did you miss me in September?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 02:55 PMI am saying, yet again, there are abundant resources for those that CHOOSE TO MAKE THE EFFORT TO FIND THEM.
You seem to be advocating rescuing all people all the time for any reason. Most humans will live up the the expectations of them. If you expect them to self reliant (in any manner) they will, if you expect/allow them to just wallow with their hand out they surely will not disappoint you.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 03:12 PM, February 13, 2006
Country Doctor Medical Clinic hurting
The Stranger just had an article about the financial strain the Country Doctor Medical Clinic is under, as governmental support shrinks and demand goes nowhere but up. You can read it here . Country Doctor is on 19th, and provides health care regardless of a person's ability to pay, which seems sweetly anachronistic these days (as does their charming Norman Rockwell-like signage).
According to The Stranger, the Country Doctor's new devleopment director is planning an agressive mailing campaign in Capitol Hill, so if you're feeling neighborly and want to make a tax deductable donation, you can keep an eye out for the mailing. If you want to be first in line in the giving dept., click here.
The resources are shrinking and yes, people are giving but there are so many organizations to give to.
One of the arguments that we have barely touched on is the efficiency of collection. We have United Way, Arts fund, and Poncho because it is more efficient to collect donations and allocate them. That is why like it or not the tax system is an efficient method of funding needs. Since this is my day to totally piss people off, let's go forward. I don't know if Bruce G has a religion or is religious. Pudge and Ragnar are Christians, as am I, there will always be different interpretations of what each Scripture passage means, but let me leave to you with this as I am off to half-price tickets to see a play.
Before I go, I hope the following passage from Luke truly pisses you off:
Luke 11:39-42
39 Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.
40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?
41 But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.
42 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone..."
Ta, Ta off to see a play.
Posted by: WVH on October 7, 2007 03:23 PMYou might have missed Luke 6:37: "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned."
Or Romans 2: "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say,* 'We know that God's judgement on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.' Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgement of God?"
Enjoy the play.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 03:37 PM
BINGO! It took you just a little longer to fall down to my expectations. Thanks for fulfilliing them so aptly and predictably.
Enjoy the play.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 7, 2007 03:41 PMI do not regard capital to be enemy of labor.
Coercion cannot but result in chaos in the end.
One who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman.
Nonviolent action without the cooperation of the heart and the head cannot produce the intended result. (From this I take it that taxation is not a good way to solve social problems.)
Freedom is like birth. Till we are fully free, we are slaves.
Freedom received through the efforts of others, however benevolent, cannot be retained when such effort is withdrawn. (So spreading freedom by force, as we are attempting to do in Iraq is pointless...)
No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom
Independence means voluntary restraints and discipline, voluntary acceptance of the rule of law.
It is my firm conviction that if the State supressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.
I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" is no counsel of perfection. The capitalist is as much a neighbor of the laborer as the latter is a neighbor of the former, and one has to seek and win the willing co- operation of the other. Nor does the principle mean that we should accept exploitation lying down. Our internal strength will render all exploitation impossible.
It can be easily demonstrated that destruction of the capitalist must mean destruction in the end of the worker and as no human being is so bad as to be beyond redemption, no human being is so perfect as to warrant his destroying him whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil.
Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
Men ... should do their actual living and working in communities ... small enough to permit of genuine self-government and the assumption of personal responsibilities, federated into larger units in such a way that the temptation to abuse great power should not arise. The larger (structurally) a democracy grows, the less becomes the rule of the people and the smaller is the say of individuals and localised groups in dealing with their own destinies. Moreover, love and affection, are essentially personal relationships. Consequently, it is only in small groups that Charity, in the Pauline sense of the word, can manifest itself. Needless to say, the smallness of the group, in no way guarantees the emergence of Charity. In a large undifferentiated group, the possibility does not even exist, for the simple reason that most of its members cannot, in the nature of things, have personal relations with one another.
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth.
Good government is the most dangerous government, because it deprives people of the need to look after themselves.
WVH: From this I conclude that Gandhi would never have defended big government welfare programs. Can you come up with any quotations from Gandhi that seem to be saying the opposite? I'd love to hear them.
Until then, I will persist in thinking that Gandhi was a libertarian. He would never defend raising taxes, even if the poor were really the beneficiaries. The ends don't justify the means. Instead, as Gandhi suggests, you must gain the voluntary cooperation of the capitalists. And since you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, I suspect that you will get more money for your social causes through persuasion of the free capitalist, than by forced subjugation of the most able and the entrepreneurs of the world.
I know that Ragnar will back me up on this one, since he must be an Ayn Rand fan, as I am...
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 7, 2007 03:41 PMMore people need to understand that the free market is a moral, ethical system, and that for all of the flaws in it's present implementation, it is much better for the poor than the alternatives. The reason we no longer have famine is capitalism. The reason our average lifespan is doubled and poverty and disease are less than they were even 20 years ago is capitalism. Those who want to go back to the failed socialistic policies of yesterday are advocating the deaths of millions of poor people.
By the way, do you aspire to the forced redistribution of wealth from government back to the people who created it as your namesake in Atlas Shrugged did? That controversial position gets more and more tempting each year...
The government that is on our backs does so many evil things. From the Iraq war to welfare dependancy... I admire those who shrug. Who find ways to legally avoid taxes, or even find ways to earn money under the table. I admire people who live simply, so as to legally reduce their own tax burdens. I wish I had the guts to engage in civil disobedience and tax revolt, as Thoreau did. But I have a family... I am not in a position to take risks. So I pay my taxes, and curse my own cowardice and laziness.
We must find a way to starve the beast.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 7, 2007 04:52 PMBruce, I've never made any arguments against capitalism in general. I'm a libertarian for adults, but kids can't fight for themselves and shouldn't suffer because their parents cannot or do not provide adequate health care for them.
Posted by: Nancy on October 7, 2007 06:15 PMPosted by Nancy at October 7, 2007 06:15 PM
Ever heard of an ER? If their parents won't take them, an ambulance can, or a neighbor. They won't be turned away.
Since the Dem's consider 24 year olds Children, at what age do Democrats consider themselves to be adults?
The problem with charity is that maybe it will run out of money and have to turn people away, or that there will be so many different charities that one will have to search and search until they find someone who is willing and able to take them in. That is a legitimate concern when there are so many charities all doing things independently with uncertain sources of revenue.
The advantage the government programs have is that their services are a little more centralized, the program that exists in one place is pretty much the same in another place, and they do not have to worry so much if next month they will have the same funding as they did last month.
I think that this is some of the issues voiced by WVH when she asks others participating in this debate how THEY see the problem being solved.
While the government program appears to be the "securest" solution, it is a false sense of security in that it makes us willing slaves.
Bruce Guthrie's Ghandi quotes were quite an eye opener for me since I had not really known of his views on libertarian principles. I think the most appropriate quote of his to use is:
Men ... should do their actual living and working in communities ... small enough to permit of genuine self-government and the assumption of personal responsibilities, federated into larger units in such a way that the temptation to abuse great power should not arise. The larger (structurally) a democracy grows, the less becomes the rule of the people and the smaller is the say of individuals and localised groups in dealing with their own destinies. Moreover, love and affection, are essentially personal relationships. Consequently, it is only in small groups that Charity, in the Pauline sense of the word, can manifest itself. Needless to say, the smallness of the group, in no way guarantees the emergence of Charity. In a large undifferentiated group, the possibility does not even exist, for the simple reason that most of its members cannot, in the nature of things, have personal relations with one another.
Charity HAS to start on the local level. The fact that we have gotten into the "habit" of expecting things to be handled on the large scale for consistency blinds us to the power of community where neighbors work together to solve problems and help each other out. That should be good enough for most issues that arise, but when something really serious happens, you will need such institutions as Shriners and Catholic Charities that have the resources to take care a bigger needs
To get to THIS kind of system, however, will require a change in our approach to things. We would have to kick our government addiction, we would have to change our culture such that we consider ourselves responsible for helping our neighbors. We would have to consider getting involved and donating to charity a public virtue. These would not be easy changes to make, and for many, the government answer is, quite practically, the easy answer. It is neat and clean and does not require us to get our own hands dirty or to actually have to "touch the leper". After all, "they have people in the government who do that."
The government answer is the easy answer, and it is the shameful answer, and ultimately, it is the destructive answer as we kill ourselves one tiny cut at a time.
Perhaps what we need rather than centralized mommy-statism is a centralized database for folks to find the help they need to help themselves.
If there can be volumes written just to help kids find and choose the right college scholarships available to them, maybe it's time to compose/demand the same type of thing for charitable organizations.
You're living in a fantasy world, Eyago. Some of us aren't willing to sacrifice children's health to cure an "infection" with a baseless ideological socio-economic experiment.
Posted by: Nancy on October 7, 2007 07:52 PMAt some point, we need to decide if parents are responsible for kids or the state is. In spite of all the terrible anecdotal stories we hear about individual bad parents, the state would be the worst parent of all. Overall, kids are better off in the hands of imperfect parents than they are in the hands of the state.
I do not trust the state with the power to take kids from "bad" parents. Power corrupts. I do not trust the state with the power to control the health care of poor kids. In light of the terrible record the state has solving any social problem:
drugs
poverty
terrorism
VA hospitals
post office monopoly
education
environment/pollution
government waste
"public" health
corruption in congress/Olympia
traffic congestion/transit
racism/sexism/homophobia
war/imperialsim/foreign relations
New Orleans levies
Disaster management
etc.
Why would you trust them to solve the problem of un-insured poor kids?
All of the best solutions to these problems lie in the private sphere.
By the way, about 75% of aid for the recent Indonesian Tsunami came from private, non-governmental entities and individuals. Only 25% came from governments. I think people are much more generous than liberals give them credit for. Americans also give way more money in absolute terms. They give less on a percentage basis, but what do we really care about, the absolute dollar amount available for charity or the percentage of income given? We care about the absolute amount. You can't convert a percentage into food or health care, instead, you need raw dollars, and this is what free markets can provide better than more socialized economies.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 7, 2007 08:31 PMThe word is Triage. You need to get out more. If you can't afford it or uninsured, there is care available. Just got too look for it.
You know, take the initiative. Don't wait for the hand out.
Posted by: Chris N on October 7, 2007 08:46 PMThis is what Bruce posted by Gandhi:
Men ... should do their actual living and working in communities ... small enough to permit of genuine self-government and the assumption of personal responsibilities, federated into larger units in such a way that the temptation to abuse great power should not arise. The larger (structurally) a democracy grows, the less becomes the rule of the people and the smaller is the say of individuals and localised groups in dealing with their own destinies. Moreover, love and affection, are essentially personal relationships. Consequently, it is only in small groups that Charity, in the Pauline sense of the word, can manifest itself. Needless to say, the smallness of the group, in no way guarantees the emergence of Charity. In a large undifferentiated group, the possibility does not even exist, for the simple reason that most of its members cannot, in the nature of things, have personal relations with one another"
Actually this seems like the government we have with three branches of government designed to act as checks and balances.
Bruce G said:
"I do not trust the state with the power to take kids from "bad" parents. Power corrupts. I do not trust the state with the power to control the health care of poor kids. In light of the terrible record the state has solving any social problem"
I think most conservative Christians support strong families and in fact want children brought up in strong families, many of the social problems that are currently evident in society would be better if children were brought up in strong families.
The problem is how to deal with what is the current situation. Some kids do not live with their families and some kids have no families. How do you propose to deal with these kids that exist in the here and now?
I see Eyago is now a member of the rat pack which refers to a group like Frank Sinatra formed. A couple of questions to group members:
1. If people are not giving now, what makes you think they will all of a sudden start giving because the effective tax rate is lowered. Faith-based givers are giving now no matter what the political situation is. Do you have any research to show your liberterian and secular friends will start writing checks when taxes go down?
2. The rat packers remind me of the NRA who view every attempt at rational gun restriction as a slide down a slippery slope. Does one really need a surface to air missle mounted on a tank to kill Bambi's mother? Conversely, this discussion is about providing health benefits for poor kids. I understand that in Pudge's Constitutional universe most programs of the federal government are illegal. In Bruce G.'s, Ragnar and Eyago's universe the federal government is totally ineffective in providing services and therefore should be totally out of providing services. My understanding is the government gets into providing services because in some instances, there are not sufficient local resources.
I think all of you agree that the government is an efficient collector of resources through taxes much like the United Way. My understanding is that you disagree:
a. With the ability to tax, I think Pudge feels that it is illegal, how the other members of the rat pack feel about the illegality of tax collection, I am unsure.
b. Even if tax collection is legal, it appears that you want a very limited use of tax revenue, probably just defense, I would imagine.
Beacuse one does not agree with your views on a and b above does not make one a socialist. What we have is a basic disagreement on whether it is legal to tax and if so, what should tax revenue be used for. Your basic line of argument is to label anyone who disagrees with you on point a and b as socialist or anti-capitalist, don't think so. We disagree on where the lines should be drawn.
Posted by: WVH on October 7, 2007 10:28 PM3. Isn't it interesting that I have specifically limited my comments in two threads to how does one care for children who are poor and how does one give a good basic education to children. The knee jerk response from Messrs. Pudge, Ragnar, and Bruce G. is that I want to collapse the entire free market system.
I never implied or stated any such thing. I simply made two points:
First, that you were ignoring the plain text, intent, and meaning of the Constitution when you advocate for federal welfare programs.
Second, that in my opinion, it is better to not have government at any level do these programs at all: that is it both possible and preferable in every way to do it without government.
I never said you are harming the free market system, although I suppose my comments may have implied you were ignoring that system.
Other than charity, do you have a plan for these children other than they rely on the kindness of strangers?
Um ... that is what YOUR plan is. That is what government welfare is.
What makes you think that the people who are not currently volunteering will suddenly change their mind and start volunteering?
The fact that they did so a lot more before government got into the charity business.
There are two main, and intertwined, reasons why people do not give to charity today: lack of resources because of high taxation, and the belief that government can handle it, so there's no need to bother.
Fix both of those problems, and people will give to the causes they believe are worthy, which will absolutely include foster care and education and even basic and essential health care for children whose families cannot afford it.
What exactly is your proof that that would occur, your lame theories?
It happened before. Where's your evidence that it won't happen again? You've been brainwashed by the government into thinking your problems cannot be solved without government. I feel sorry for you.
And it's also why, even as a pro-life Christian, I would support Giuliani over Huckabee: Huckabee thinks the point of government, including federal government, is to solve my everyday problems. He's wrong.
a. With the ability to tax, I think Pudge feels that it is illegal, how the other members of the rat pack feel about the illegality of tax collection, I am unsure.
You're confused. I never said anything about the collection of taxes being illegal, at any level.
b. Even if tax collection is legal, it appears that you want a very limited use of tax revenue, probably just defense, I would imagine.
When it comes to the federal government, the use of tax revenue must be limited to those powers that the Constitution says the federal government has (and those the states explicitly do NOT have), and no other. That is what the Constitution says, and there is no serious debate on that issue. The only debate is whether we should follow what the Constitution says, and if so, how to go about doing it.
I said nothing about the use of tax revenue by any other government, only the federal government.
1) There would be more money left in the hands of private people for charity and they would give more.
2) The economy would grow faster, creating even more wealth, more of which would wind up in charities.
Also, if it were known that the government was getting out of it, more people would take responsibility for it. Right now a lot of people think "that's the job of the government." But it's not...
The only legitimate job of the government is the defense of our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. The founders saw the threat to liberty from the expansion of government activities, so they prohibited those acts to the federal government via the 10th ammendment.
Charity is not the role of the government. Even Gandhi is on my side on this one.
But if you DO think that the power of government is NOT limited by the Constitution, then you really are a socialist.
I realize that some countries are more socialistic than others. The US is about 35% socialistic, since State, Federal and local taxes take up about 35% of GDP. France is more socialistic, and Cuba is even more so.
My point is that when you advocate that government takes over charitable functions, you are advocating a socialistic program, that is contradictory to the individual rights that our country was based on, and should return to for the sake of the poor.
I am not an anarchist. Taxation can be seen as violating the right to property. It would be great if the country could be run on voluntary contributions. Maybe it can, but I am skeptical. Taxation is therefore a necessary evil. As such it must be minimized. The only legitimate purpose for taxation and government spending is on preserving our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property, maintaining the minimal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and state and local governments. All other uses for tax money is unconstitutional. I'll even label it socialistic.
What happened in the 80's is that we discovered that Soviet style centrally planned economies don't work. They could not compete with relatively free economies. What we will discover in the coming decades is that economies like those in France and Germany, which have relatively less central planning will also not be able to compete. It will just take longer for them to find out. In fact, France and Germany have just elected more fiscally conservative leaders. They are moving in our direction, slowly. They have seen the writing on the wall.
The poor are better off here than there.
Socialized medicine, even just insurance programs for kids, are a step in the direction of French or German style socialism. It is the wrong direction if you care about the poor.
But your side is winning. Socialized medicine is coming. I only hope that I am allowed to opt-out.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 7, 2007 11:12 PMI am saddened by the comments here. So many of you could care less about your fellow human beings, especially children. All you care about is yourselves. Bush has made a mistake by not signing the bill. So much for his Compassionate Conservatism.Don't believe me, then may I refer you to the former head of his Faith based initiatives program (David Kuo) and what he had to say on the not signing of the bill ...
So I wrote a comment to Kuo. He thanked me for my "great and challenging comments" and wrote up a new entry on his site about the issue of what the proper role of government is in charity.
Two comments. First, to tc: you are the one who referred me to Kuo, and he said I was speaking truth. So nyah.
Second, I am very pleased to see this discussion happening. We really need to bring these two sides of the Christian community together to hash this out. Not that this isn't an important and interesting discussion for non-Christians -- there's a lot of crossover, for it's not just Christians that think we should love our neighbor, and not just Christians who believe in liberty -- but many of the particulars are unique to our faith.
Posted by: pudge on October 7, 2007 11:34 PMThis is an opinion piece exerpted from the Chronical of Philantrophy:
I'm turning in early, so Pudge and others, I'll catch your comments tomorrow.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v18/i14/14005301.htm
Helping the Poor Takes More Than Charity
By Mark Rosenman
Some influential commentators and political activists have begun to again argue that government should no longer provide essential social services to the needy, labeling such a practice an unnecessary and undesirable vestige of the New Deal. They say that private initiative should take the place of public responsibility and that charity can be an adequate and acceptable substitute for government in meeting needs and resolving social problems.
While similar assertions have gained little ground in the past, nonprofit organizations and foundations need to be more vigilant today in arguing that this point of view is both morally and financially suspect.
The staggering growth in the federal deficit is one reason the debate about the role of nonprofit groups versus government has intensified.
Add to that the legitimate and widely shared dissatisfaction with some poorly operated and wasteful government programs, especially since Hurricane Katrina, and it is easy to see why many people think nonprofit groups might do a better job than public agencies.
But it is not just dissatisfaction with government and the federal revenue-spending gap that has fueled a renewed focus on charity. There is a deeper motivation for some politicians.
Looking at the growth in the sheer number of nonprofit groups -- more than a million are now in operation -- plus the ostensible creativity and effectiveness of programs started by a new wave of "social entrepreneurs," it is tempting for charities and taxpayers to buy into the idea that philanthropy can take care of the needy.
Projections that trillions of dollars will flow to nonprofit groups over the coming decades as the World War II generation dies have also buttressed the notion that charities can afford to do more than in the past. Yet in truth this bias toward charity is a befogging illusion created more in service to ideology than to society.
While Americans are a very generous and caring people, the combined yearly contributions of individuals, philanthropic foundations, and corporations to all causes except religion are considerably less than the annual allocations the federal government makes to deal with social services, the arts, education, the environment, and other causes where nonprofit groups work -- and that is not counting medical payments, tuition assistance, welfare, and other money that goes to any American who is poor enough to qualify for aid.
Charitable contributions would have to grow more than 30 times faster than usual to make up the difference if government spending on social causes were eliminated. And that assumes that all increased spending by nonprofit groups and foundations to offset government cuts would go to help the neediest -- not spread thinly among the wide range of causes where charitable organizations focus their attention.
Strikingly, even if foundations gave away every last dollar in all of their endowments, it would do little more than cover this year's federal deficit with a fraction left toward the next one. And that is just the operating deficit, not the national budget or the debt. Furthermore, the projections for a transfer of wealth have been so slow to materialize it is increasingly doubtful that trillions of dollars will be bequeathed to nonprofit groups....
The real debate is over whether people need social-service aid because of their own failure to take personal responsibility for their lives, or whether they require help because of broader societal or economic dynamics.
How people answer that question usually helps explain whether they believe government or philanthropy should pay to solve the problems of the needy.
Leaders of the Bush administration and many other conservatives see poverty as a consequence of bad people making bad decisions and doing bad things; they see personal redemption, education, and hard work as the only solution.
That is why the White House has encouraged religious groups to get more involved in providing government-financed social services. That policy reflects this notion that the problem is poor people and not poverty, and that the remedy must be approached person-by-person, with little or no attention to correcting inadequacies in governmental institutions, programs, and policies....
People of divergent political views agree that the best way to fight poverty is to make sure everyone has a decent-paying job. Today, the nation is far from achieving that goal. Nearly a quarter of the American work force is paid at a rate less than the amount a family of four needs to stay above the poverty line even when working full-time....
Bringing together the common interests of left and right is desirable if nonprofit groups are to better serve the poor. Would those on the right advocating work as the answer to poverty join the left in fighting for government intervention to assure a living wage?
Such a collaboration would be a first step in acknowledging that philanthropy alone cannot solve the problems of the poor. Charities and foundations cannot set fiscal or economic policies, nor can they mediate shifting labor or trade patterns. Still, such action is necessary: Our domestic economy less and less rewards hard work, yet many Americans still want people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Conservatives like to hark back to an earlier time when Americans took care of one another without government's help, but there really was no such era.
While federal involvement in meeting human needs dates only to about the Civil War, local government has always played a role. Even in colonial times, the care of the poor and vulnerable was often a task for which people were paid a subsidy by local officials, just like foster-care parents of today receive government payments.
Yet some political thinkers who say they prefer charity over government reflect an ideology of greed.
Many of the same people advocating private initiative over government programs also are trying to repeal the estate tax, an action that would cost charities up to $25-billion a year in lost contributions while also increasing the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars through additional giveaways to the very wealthiest Americans.
That reflects no true concern for the poor -- in fact none for the more than 98 percent of Americans hurt by such avarice.
The nonprofit world is essential to our society, especially to people who are losing out as government cuts back on domestic spending. But in the face of a deluding exaggeration of the scope and power of charity and a continuing assault on the scope and power of government, nonprofit organizations need to find new ways to improve and defend government programs while popularizing a sense of public responsibility among Americans as taxpayers, donors, volunteers, and voters. And philanthropic foundations need to fuel those efforts.
Mark Rosenman works in Washington as a professor of public service at Union Institute & University, which has its headquarters in Cincinnati.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2006 The Chronicle of Philanthropy
How many years have the Dem's been saying it's for the childern in our government run schools?
Well is it any better now? We have spent millions for the childern and it's got us where?
So ask this question. Do you really think it's for the childern now?
You let the government run your health care and you'll be damn sorry!
But I guess for you two, it's live and learn.
What a shame.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 8, 2007 06:40 AMA week ago I held much more respect for you and what I perceived was critical and rational reason in your approach to issues.
Now that you have several times mischaracterized my arguments and resorted to name calling and marginalization, I am less inclined to take your points at face value.
My post in #61 was designed to acknowledge both sides of the issue and to credit that the answer is not easy. Yes, it is my conclusion that abdicating our responsibility to a central and ultimately uncaring institution is dangerous and self-destructive. I do not mean to imply that the transition would be easy and that to make the change we would require a significant paradigm shift to achieve, which is not significantly far off from the issues editorialized by your posted article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy. However, I also have significant problems with how Mr. Rosenman plays fast and loose with his stats. See subsequent post that I will write after making breakfast for the kids....
Posted by: Eyago on October 8, 2007 08:12 AMThere is no logic WHATSOEVER in the claim that it is financially unsustainable without government help, because all government resources are taken from the private sector. So clearly, without the government taking that money, the money is available.
The argument that people WON'T use that money is unsupported by ANY facts WHATSOEVER.
This article makes the same nonsensical logic error you and others often make: looking at contributions NOW and assuming that if government didn't take our money for the purposes of welfare, that our giving habits would remain unchanged. Of course they would change. That's a no-brainer.
This statement shows rampant ignorance: Yet some political thinkers who say they prefer charity over government reflect an ideology of greed. Of course, this argument -- the same one you gave -- reflects the point that Eric made initially. And it is clearly bogus, a necessarily dishonest or ignorant statement. His ignorance doesn't stop there:
Many of the same people advocating private initiative over government programs also are trying to repeal the estate tax, an action that would cost charities up to $25-billion a year in lost contributions while also increasing the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars through additional giveaways to the very wealthiest Americans.
And? So? What's that got to do with liberty? Well, he tells us:
That reflects no true concern for the poor -- in fact none for the more than 98 percent of Americans hurt by such avarice.
Lies, damned lies. It is not a fact that 98 percent of Americans are hurt by such "avarice." Indeed, I believe that 100 percent of Americans -- except those who want to control us through force -- are HELPED by such supposed "avarice."
My philosophies here are borne out of nothing more than a concern for others. I can say with no reservations that there isn't the slightest bit of greed or avarice related to my views on this issue. I want only what is best for all people, which is liberty. And not liberty for liberty's sake, but with the firm belief that through liberty, we achieve the greatest prosperity, including the greatest means, motive, and opportunity to help those who are truly in need.
My argument goes far deeper than that article is willing to give me credit for: my argument undercuts the entire assumption that people are better off through government welfare of any kind, and anyone who would pretend it is about greed or avarice or that people are better off without liberty are either dishonestly or ignorantly misrepresenting my views, and the views of millions of other libertatians and conservatives.
Posted by: pudge on October 8, 2007 08:54 AMEyago talks about transitions--an obvious way to transition is to first go to a tax CREDIT for charitable contributions at a certain level, with the excess being a tax DEDUCTION. This will put the individual in charge of where that money goes rather than the government. Worthwhile and efficient charities will tend to get more of these contributions. Non-worthwhile and inefficient charities will tend to get less. This is as it should be.
The tax credit should, over time, be phased out and be replaced by a tax deduction. My opinion is that private charities will help a lot more people for a lot less money than government ever would.
As to the generosity of the American people, we are the most generous in the world. And we would be more generous still if government did not take so much of our earnings for well-intentioned, but unconstitution purposes.
This line from the article on philanthropy seems to be disengenuous: "While Americans are a very generous and caring people, the combined yearly contributions of individuals, philanthropic foundations, and corporations to all causes except religion are considerably less than the annual allocations the federal government makes..." Why are contributions to religion excluded? Churches and Church agencies are some of the greatest charitable operations around--perhaps his statement would not be true if religious contributions were included?
Just my two cents.
Posted by: Bill H on October 8, 2007 09:29 AMAs I said in #75, he plays fast and loose with his statistics, but he also uses a number of other techniques to bias the reader into believing that without the federal government we would slide into as WVH might say: "a Dickinsian nightmare."
I will take it bit by bit as he presents his arguments:
While Americans are a very generous and caring people, the combined yearly contributions of individuals, philanthropic foundations, and corporations to all causes except religion are considerably less than the annual allocations the federal government makes to deal with social services, the arts, education, the environment, and other causes where nonprofit groups work -- and that is not counting medical payments, tuition assistance, welfare, and other money that goes to any American who is poor enough to qualify for aid.
The federal government is a funny agency. When I was going to college, my financial aid application required me to list my parent's income to determine if I should get aid. I really did not qualify for much, only student loans (at a paltry 9%, thank you very much.) But what was interesting is that while I was getting this "benefit" my parents were paying income taxes well in excess of what I was even borrowing. So, while I was ostensibly poor enough to qualify for aid, I probably could have simply borrowed the money from my parents had their taxes been a bit lower.
Charitable contributions would have to grow more than 30 times faster than usual to make up the difference if government spending on social causes were eliminated.
Here is his first statistical hyperbole coupled with a little slight of hand logic. What does he really mean "grow 30 times faster"? It sounds impressive but if you think about it, it does not tell us anything of value. What is the growth based on? What is the base line? What is the target number? How long must it grow at the "30 times faster" rate? Typically, when I see some stat like this, I am almost reasonably sure that it is a worst case scenario, meant to scare rather than inform, and coupled with the basic thrust of this editorial, I am certain it was quoted simply for effect. This one stat undermines any credibility he might have had that this was a serious analysis of the complex charity issue. This is simply a hack job meant to convince people that the federal government must be the agent of social welfare.
However, it gets worse with the second half of the paragraph. You see, he says:
And that assumes that all increased spending by nonprofit groups and foundations to offset government cuts would go to help the neediest -- not spread thinly among the wide range of causes where charitable organizations focus their attention.
Of course, we are somewhat led to believe that the government programs must then be effective at helping the "neediest" and not "spread thinly among the wide range of causes where [government programs] focus their attention."
This does no serious analysis of whether government or private charities are more effective at getting money to where it is needed most. It is a sneaky way of implying the government does it well and private charities will not.
Another hidden assumption is that all the money collected and given by the government is for needy people. In my case, the government collects taxes from my family and then gives that same amount back to us. Had it not been taken in the first place, it would not have had to give it back. How much of this "churning" accounts for the vast size of the federal expenditures that would not be needed under a private system?
Leaders of the Bush administration and many other conservatives see poverty as a consequence of bad people making bad decisions and doing bad things; they see personal redemption, education, and hard work as the only solution.
Thinly veiled derision here. "bad people"? "doing bad things"? Oh, yes, those evil, conservative, right wing, Christian, hateful people. Always blaming the victim.
That is why the White House has encouraged religious groups to get more involved in providing government-financed social services. That policy reflects this notion that the problem is poor people and not poverty, and that the remedy must be approached person-by-person, with little or no attention to correcting inadequacies in governmental institutions, programs, and policies....
So, Mr. Rosenman, how has Johnson's war on poverty been doing these 40 years? Maybe we just have not given enough attention to "correcting inadequacies in governmental institutions, programs, and policies." and just a little tweaking is all wee need.
People of divergent political views agree that the best way to fight poverty is to make sure everyone has a decent-paying job. Today, the nation is far from achieving that goal. Nearly a quarter of the American work force is paid at a rate less than the amount a family of four needs to stay above the poverty line even when working full-time....
If I was not convinced of the bias in his argument by now, this one clinched it for me.
It is the tired and true canard of the liberal thinker. The lie here is that every worker is assumed to be the single bread winner of a family of 4. It makes no accounting for high school students, college students, singles, empty nesters, etc. I would be one of that "quarter of the American workforce" in High school, college and several years beyond when my income was below the poverty line for a family of 4. But then, I was not a family of 4, and I did just fine. The problem here also is that it assumes that people stay at poverty wages all their lives. I know I would have LOVED to have the $31,000 a year income while I was going to school, but I did not have the skills or the experience to earn it. Yet. A little hard work and some time later I worked my way up the chain, like many people do.
Bringing together the common interests of left and right is desirable if nonprofit groups are to better serve the poor. Would those on the right advocating work as the answer to poverty join the left in fighting for government intervention to assure a living wage?
"Assure a living wage." This pretty much torpedoes any doubt of Mr. Rosenman's liberal agenda.
Such a collaboration would be a first step in acknowledging that philanthropy alone cannot solve the problems of the poor. Charities and foundations cannot set fiscal or economic policies, nor can they mediate shifting labor or trade patterns. Still, such action is necessary: Our domestic economy less and less rewards hard work, yet many Americans still want people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
More liberal, anti-capitalism. "Our domestic economy less and less rewards hard work..." Yeah? Says who?
Many of the same people advocating private initiative over government programs also are trying to repeal the estate tax, an action that would cost charities up to $25-billion a year in lost contributions while also increasing the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars through additional giveaways to the very wealthiest Americans.
Yes, giveaways to the wealthy is what liberals call letting you keep your own money. I have a better and easier idea. Why don't we simply give ALL our property and money to the government and have them give back to us what they think is fair. Anything else would be "giveaways to the wealthiest of Americans."
That reflects no true concern for the poor -- in fact none for the more than 98 percent of Americans hurt by such avarice.
total hyperbole.
WVH,
As I have thoroughly analyzed this article I am in complete surprise that YOU would use it as a resource to bolster your position. It is so blatantly liberal that it should have been rejected outright as being totally counter to any conservative principles that you might hold. It speaks of a total welfare state and is completely against personal accountability and personal liberty.
Posted by: eyago on October 8, 2007 09:56 AMDo you realy want the government to run this.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 8, 2007 10:15 AMI'd just like to remind everyone that I am an atheist.
My morality, which is not based on faith but which I try my best to base on reason, seems to come to the same conclusions about individual liberty as many of you Christians.
It sounds like there are quite a few Ayn Rand fans in this discussion. Though we are on your side regarding the free market, please don't lump us in with the Christians.
There is a chance that our perspective might be useful in reaching out to the atheistic liberals.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 8, 2007 10:16 AMGuess what, when the issue is making sure that poor children have health care and a good basic education and really don't give a rat's rear if you have respect for me or like me. I am not a socialist and I do support traditional family issues. Guess what, I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Some of you are so tied to your particular ideology, that you can't look at any other viewpoint. The key issue for me is making sure kids without family support are cared for. So, if you can give assures other than well, if you lower the tax rate and they will come with checkbooks in hand and these kids will be taken care of, where is your study or your opinion piece. Folks, I am a true indie which is why I don't like either party.
The fact of the matter is you have no clue as to how to take care of children who have morons or absentee parents. Since you are not in the child's circumstance, it is ok for you to rely on your theories, it costs you nothing in your comfortable circumstance. Good grief, from the way the rat pack is carrying on about this issue, one would think that the proposal was immediate wage and price controls.
Hillary is going to win this election in a landslide, not because people like her or trust her, but while many Americans are stupid, on the whole they are not crazy. Too many people have been laid off or know some one who has been laid off or may be part of the housing mortage issue. I don't think Americans want the type of European socialism, but they want to make sure the most vulnerable are cared for. I expect Hillary to be elected and a pubbie congress to follow because Americans want to limit the impact of crazies on both sides.
Oh by the way, Eyago and others I'm going to disappoint you and make you think less of me with the next comment. For those of you that can't come up with a concrete way to take care of the needy children in the here and now, how Christian and charitable of you.
Posted by: WVH on October 8, 2007 10:26 AMHave you had your first cup of coffee yet? You the newest member of the rat pack? Now as a medic, you know the importance of health care. The issue is this, how does this society care for children who have morons or absentee parents? I am open to any suggestion you make? Now, on the issue of schools, I have been quite clear I favor competition in schools. Are you and the rest of the rat pack able to look at each issue and analyze each issue separately? Oh, I see, being stuck in an ideology means that every issue has to be lumped together, is that it? The issue is kids, how do you propose that these kids who are here now, not fetuses be cared for. Any suggestions other than charity?
Posted by: WVH on October 8, 2007 10:34 AMExcuse me WVH... Rat pack and I'm not a newbe.
You ask me for my suggestion than POP-OFF with the Rat Pack?
I see people in the Hospital and many times I take them there. You have no idea what the Gov reg's cause already.
PS I've also been to EU for vaction to meet other medics & fire fighters. They hate their system.
You think our ER as busy,, LOL
First idea, get the government out of health care NOW!
You have no idea what mess your going to get and please drop the Childern statement.
I'll taken care of many kids from this state to Calif and Mexico.
PS don't be so sure on Hillary taking the White House. Just look at 1968 when the dem's were sure they had it. Nixon won!
THAT attitude is exactly WHY the health care industry is a mess. Lazy parents like you that run to the doctor for some free care at the first sign of the sniffles.
I'll give you some free medical advice for your snot-nosed kids "cold": Give him 2 acetaminophen and wait a week, or DON'T give him 2 acetaminophen and wait a week.
MESSAGE: THERE IS NO CURE FOR THE COLD AND WITH THIS KIND OF "MEDICAL" NONSENSE *YOU* ARE SELFISHLY WASTING MEDICAL RESOURCES (IN THE FORM OF INSURANCE MONEY AND DOCTORS TIME) AND DESTROYING THE AFFORDABILITY OF HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THOSE WITH REAL PROBLEMS.
Get a damned book and learn how to care for a child. A COLD is part of life and the billions of dollars you advocate taking from others will not change that one iota.
Furthermore, you could take every penny Bill Gates, Queen Elizabeth and the richest Saudi Prince have and there STILL will not be enough money, because when you give ANYTHING for nothing, people like you find ways to complain for more. A perfect example of that is the whiners that complain they "need" a sex change operation to live normally or the parent that complains that poor little Nancy gets picked on because her nose is funny or her ears stick out and "oh please nanny-state, lets fix her nose and pin her ears". Boo flipping hoo.
You liberals need to look beyond your feelings and good intentions and search for actual consequences to your kooky, putative and expensive ideas.
AND the thing that really pisses me off is how easily the likes of that one-woman communist government Hillary DUPES you FOOLS into believing "it's for the children".
row up and get a clue: IT'S ABOUT POWER.
You say:
I am open to any suggestion you make (sic)?
No you are not. You are wedded to one solution and any attempts to explain the dangers of your position are met with derision and name calling. You want enforced charity and call us bad Christians if we don't agree that we need to rob from the rich to give to the poor. If you want to admonish Christians for anything than you can certainly tell them as Jesus did that they are in error for not giving of their own wealth to those in need, but you are Biblically errant when you say that we must work to give OTHER PEOPLE'S money to the poor. No where did Christ say that, and for you to claim so is errant.
You do not display your faith in God when you insist that the only way that God's people can help the poor is to force others to do it. You are putting your faith in the principalities of this world and not God. If the faith community is unable, in this fabulously wealthy nation, to care for the handful of poor people within its borders, than that says something about them, and critics of Christianity have ample ammunition to lay upon our shoulders the mantle of selfish hypocrit, but the solution to this problem is not to have Christians advocate for coercion to enforce charity.
The interesting thing is that in all likelihood, even the poorest in our nation was richer than 99% of all people Jesus came in contact with. Our poor are vastly richer than the disciples, richer than nearly all of the Jewish leaders whom Jesus admonished for being stingy and not giving to the poor.
You are so focused on the ends that you are willing to compromise the teachings of Christ to support a means. Great evil has been done in the name of good ends, and I will readily reject a means if it leads to a violation of the principles of Christ.
You obviously think that there is money in this country to meet the need or you would not advocate for the government to gather it and distribute it to others. If there IS that kind of wealth, then why are you against it being gathered privately, without force? Why do you have so little faith in the Christians of this country, and of God to move them to meet the need?
I do not plan to vote for Hillary, but I believe she will win. I don't think that many who will vote for her will like her. Two things, I believe that the children's health care issue and stop focusing solely on the particular piece of legislation has hurt whether you guys want to acknowledge it or not. I believe that Hillary will win because believe it or not she probably is less scary than a lot of the libertarian ideas put forth on the children's health issue. Also, a significant number of people believe it will be Bill's third term.
You guys can call me and Nancy all the names you want, but the issue is how do you propose to take care of needy children? If you can't come up with a plan however you do it, then I believe this is one issue where a lot of Americans will see Hillary as the lesser of evils and balance her off with a pubbie congress.
Posted by: WVH on October 8, 2007 11:11 AMWhen "the common good" of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. "What is Capitalism?" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
I will not become a sacrificial animal for like of you who is too lazy to know that a cold does not need a doctor visit. I will not be a sacrificial animal to the phony do-gooders like you who think taking from others will assuage their own guilt and laziness.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 8, 2007 11:21 AMWell I am calling BULLSH*T on you - if you want what we have, take it like the thieves you are. Even a thief is more honest in his repulsive actions. He doesn't hide his intentions or his goals.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 8, 2007 11:26 AMHere you go toots:
Taking Care of Your Child: A Parent's Illustrated Guide to Complete Medical Care
Book Description
A completely revised and updated edition of the best-selling and award-winning guide to keeping children healthy
Over a million and a half families already use Taking Care of Your Child to help keep their children healthy. Updated with the most recent research and recommendations, this award-winning guide discusses common medical problems, as well as emotional issues such as new siblings and school challenges. The authors even provide forms for medical, growth, and immunization records. And unlike other children's health books, this comprehensive guide is useful from birth through a child's adolescence.
Taking Care of Your Child is easy to use, even in a crisis. Simply look up a symptom, and you find a complete explanation of probable causes, how serious they are, and how you might quickly relieve your child's problem at home. Easy-to-follow decision charts show parents exactly when to take a child to see a doctor. This book covers more than 100 common complaints-injuries and allergies, childhood diseases-with especially clear advice on handling emergencies.
$13.57 at Amazon
FREE to check out at any King County Library ( yes, they have it! Aren't libraries just amazing things? /sarcasm)
Your capacity for self-delusion is nothing short of astounding.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 8, 2007 11:43 AM
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/10/inverted.html
Excuse me again, but you said RAT Pack. Not me.
You talk about taking care of kids. I laugh, not at you, but I see so many people who can't even care for themselves. We have no rules on who can or can't be parents. (thanks god)
When I saw the ER's in London, Naples, & France I was shocked on how many people who come there for head colds or just because they can.
What was really scary, many Doc's were not from EU. They left to other counries. You know what doc's replaced them. Try Africa and Saudi. "scary"
There is no perfect answer for this question, but if you even think the gov can fix it. You'll be sorry!
Neither I or Nancy advocate people having kids they can't care for. The fact is some do. All we want is a decent life for the kids who have no responsible adult who is caring for them. Calling us names and socialists because that is what we want is shortsighted.
Now Eyago,
I have a great deal of faith in most Christians. However, not everyone in this country professes a faith. Many who do not profess a faith are quite generous, but not all. You can sic away at me all you want, how Christian and charitable. What does the New Testament say about love, something about overlooking faults? Your brand of Christianity, in my opinion, is more like the Pharisees' brand of religion. You are entitled to your beliefs and your interpretation. Frankly, the lines seem to been drawn in this one. For those whose interest is seeing that needy kids are taken care of, don't look to a certain segment of the conservative Christian community or the th conservative community for support. Thankfully, there are enough others in this country with different viewpoints who will get off their ideology and do something for these kids other than spout ideology. I suppose we can all thank God for that.
Posted by: WVH on October 8, 2007 12:26 PMI know this is getting old, but if people have kids and don't even care to take care of their health insurance, what ever makes you thinks they will take the kids in the first place. (when we pay for it)
Dumb people will do dumb things, and no law can chance that.
We already know that the family who the Dem's used to boster their bill are out right liars!
They have the money, but want someone else to pay it!
I truly feel sorry for you if let your feelings set your opinion for you and other families.
Most feel good ideas are usually a bad ideas.
This world is not perfect and using kids to make law is the worse of all.
You want to lump me in with the call me in with the Pharisees, you'll need to back it up with specifics.
You are right, there was no value in pointing out a grammatical error when I quoted you. Picky and pointless and I owe you an apology.
I have not once faulted you for wanting to help children, nor have I called you a socialist. I credit you your desire for wanting to help and I acknowledge your conservative leanings which often align nicely with mine. However, I still think you are wrong in how you are pursuing this issue.
However, not everyone in this country professes a faith. Many who do not profess a faith are quite generous, but not all.
This seems to be the crux of your justification for proposing a government solution to the issue. Let's parse it out a little and see what it implies when you tack on the "a Christian should support this" claim.
Given: People of faith give more than people who do not. Given: Not enough is given voluntarily to cover the needs. Given: The need is important. Therefore: We will ensure that enough is given by using the law to make those who would not voluntarily give thus give anyway. Given: As Christians we are compelled by our faith to make sure the children are cared for. Therefore: all Christians must support this process.
In effect you are saying that Christians are bound by their faith to force non-Christians to give to charity. I cannot accept that doctrine.
As a Christian, I am accountable to God for how I treat the poor and my money. I am not accountable to God for how others do, only they are accountable to Him. I can attempt to convict my brothers and sisters with how they treat "the least of these", but I cannot do the same for those who do not believe. I first have to get them to believe before I can show them that the Bible makes it clear that those who believe IN God must also do what God commands. I am not in a position to make people follow God's commands against their will. It is my understanding that even God does not do that. He wants our obedience, given freely, he does not make us become obedient against our will. (That puts me well into the Armenian camp verses the Calvanistic, if you have any truck with that debate.)
It seems to me that you are in effect arguing that as Christians we must MAKE non-Christians be compassionate because we cannot do it with our own resources. This is where I bring in the faith issue. If the problem is too big for us Christians, the answer should not lie in the secular government. Care for all mankind lies in God's hands. I can only be faithful with what He gives me and put my faith in Him for whatever else He would do.
This addresses ONLY your Christian "rider" to your argument. It does not address the practical issues of public policy which is a different animal. I do not agree or disagree with SCHIP based upon my Christian faith. It is either a worthwhile program for society or not solely based on whether it will achieve its desired effect in a way that is better than any reasonable alternatives. The fact that my family qualified for SCHIP BEFORE the expansion tells me that it is not a program set up to help the truly needy since I consider my family far from truly needy. And if that is the case, why the push to expand it even further? My skeptical side tells me that it is because the "it's for the needy children" is simply the camel's nose under the tent for a different goal.
Look for a Camel WVH. :)
Posted by: eyago on October 8, 2007 01:12 PMThe problem is that it can not be done. There is no certainty, no sure thing in this world. There is no way to ensure that ALL children get good health care.
My point is that there is a spectrum, from pure socialism at one end, to the pure free market at the other end. In this country, we are somewhere in the middle, since about half of health care dollars are spent via the government. Medicare, medicaid, the VA hospitals, government employee health care, etc. take up about half of health care spending in the US today. So we have a half-socialized system. France and Cuba both have more purely socialized systems, with less choice and less freedom.
There are ethical questions and practical questions. I'll stick to the practical side, since you and I do not share ethical principles.
The practical questions we have to answer are these:
1) Will poor children be better off under slightly more socialism or slightly more free market?
2) If we have a mixed system, which parts should be socialized and which parts free market?
My opinion, of course, is that even the poor will be better off with less socialism. I admit that this position is controversial, and I argue by analogy: Food provision for the poor is now handled mostly by the free market. People shop at grocery stores and go to cheap restaurants. But if the government handled food provision in the US, quality and diversity would go down, and there would be waiting lines around the block. The same is true of socialized medicine.
Right now, health insurance prices are jacked up by the government. State and federal governments put requirements on policys to cover certain things.
My deceased wife's policy was required to cover wigs for chemo patients. That's absurd. The purpose of insurance is to cover major expenses, not minor ones. But everyone pays higher insurance premiums because of these requirements. At the margin, thousands of people can't afford insurance, or decide it is not worth it, because of this marginal price.
If I had to compromise, I think the first place would be at the poor end of the spectrum. If the bottom 20% based on income and assets were given a taxpayer-funded basic health insurance plan, but the rest of us were allowed to shop on the free market for insurance, and insurance was no longer deductible as a business expense so that we can de-couple it from employment and make it portable and competitive, then I would call that a step in the right direction. This is a means-tested program. The poor would not be automatically covered. They would have to sign up for the program. They would have to opt-in. And when they did, I think that their names and addresses should be made public on a website. If you accept this socialized program, you should have to tell the taxpayers and your neighbors that you have done it.
First of all, we would have gone from a system where 50% of health care in the US were socialized to a system where less than 20% was, AND the left could not complain that there was no "social safety net."
Such a compromise moves me in the direction of my goals, and would be better for the poor than the current system. It leaves the middle class and rich, 80% of us, to the free market, with high quality, low costs, more innovation and better choices that come from competition.
But the SCHIP expansion we are talking about (remember the topic of this thread?) would put millions of new kids into a system that is already 50% socialized, and as a result, way too inefficient.
It's not just that I think that socialism is immoral, because it violates our rights and represents an un-Gandhian first use of force against peaceful people. It's that I know that socialism makes human beings suffer. It's that I know that these government programs will be worse than ineffective. They will waste the labor of the people and they will encourage dependancy and dispair among the poor. The government programs will provide worse quality care, longer waiting lines and will cost more money than privatized systems. This is the case in Canada, Britain, etc.
Worst of all, since the government runs the system for the poor, there will be no choice for them. Monopoly is a bad thing, right? The government will tell them what care they may have, and since money will be limited, the government will decide when a certain treatment is not worth it to society. At the end of life, costs tend to go up. In other words, the government will cut you off at some point. The government will decide when you die.
Back to my bottom 20% compromise proposal:
Now, I would hope that a plan could be implemented to have that 20% funded more and more by private charities as time goes on. Call it "creeping libertarianism." But I would accept this compromise for the short term.
What do you think? Will you accept my compromise, or continue to fight for more health care to be socialized in the US?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 8, 2007 05:28 PMNow Bush says he will RENEW the current SCHIP, but not what was put before him (sweeten pot).
So if anyone is to blame, it is the dem's for trying to push something, that needs further debate, like the sweeten pot.
Give Bush the Original, and he will sign it. Don't and he vows to veto.
So WVH and Nancy. Who is Denying Who? Children have available health care in this country. You just have to look for it. Or do you both think we should just Write each poor parent a check for their child's health care each month?
I say, Let The Debate's Begin!!!
As does Bush. He is willing to debate, but not sign just yet.
Give him what needs renewed, but debate the extra.
What is so Wrong with that???
WVH Nancy ????
First off, my condolences on your late wife. No matter how much we may disagree on political issues, on the human stuff, my best on your loss.
This is what Bruce G said:
" WVH, your challenge, repeated often, is: how do we ensure that children of poor or stupid parents are cared for?
The problem is that it can not be done. There is no certainty, no sure thing in this world. There is no way to ensure that ALL children get good health care."
This really is the difference in politcs of the two points represented here. Guess what this is going for a political resolution. If the "socialists" or whatever you want to call us have sufficent votes, the kids will be covered, otherwise they won't.
So, I guess I'll just have to join the rat pack on advocating for competition in education or some other issue where we can agree. On this one, we simply just don't agree. Think I'll look at some other threads.
Posted by: WVH on October 8, 2007 09:19 PMI like you and your idea. Unfortunately, neither side is clean here. The dem leadership wants the bill to fail so they can beat pubbies up with the issue. I am an indie because both sides play politics and yes, the kids suffer. I do agree with you, however.
Posted by: WVH on October 8, 2007 09:52 PMI am always curious about the faith traditions of others. I remember a discussion on abortion where you wrote about having no problem with abortion as in your philosophical tradition, the soul does not enter the body until birth. The Hoover report cited above draws a distinction between giving by those with a faith tradition and those without.
1. Are you of a particular faith tradition?
2. Do you practice a particular faith at this point?
Not that your views are that much different than the Pharisees of the Christian faith.
Posted by: WVH on October 9, 2007 07:59 AMHere are some FACTS for the willingly mis-informed, the ill-advised do-gooders and the smarmy insulters who comment here... YOU know who you are.
* The House and Senate sent a hugely expanded version of the SCHIP program to the President and the President, as promised, vetoed the bill.
* First things first. SCHIP is not pronounced "ship." It is pronounced "ESS-chip."
* Now for the dead lock bar bet: SCHIP stands for  State Children's Health Insurance Program.
* Which, of course, it is not. It is a FEDERAL children's health insurance program but "EFF-chip" wasn't ever going to fly if only because it sounds too much like F-Troop.
* According to PBS, the original CHIP (no S) program was adopted in 1997 having been supported by President Bill Clinton.
* The idea behind this program is a worthy one: To provide health insurance to children whose families are too poor to afford the premiums on their own, but make too much to qualify for coverage under Medicaid.
* The program which has been in effect covers young Americans up to the age of 18 with a family income of not more than twice the official poverty level.
* According to the Department of Health & Human Services web site, in 2007 a family of four was deemed living at the poverty level if it had an annual income of not more than $20,650. That level of income for a family of four would qualify as poverty in 2007 under any fair assessment.
* A child in that family qualifies for health care through Medicaid but a family making a total income of $30,000 would not. Under the existing SCHIP guidelines a child with a family income of up to $40,000 would qualify.
* But, the Democrats' re-do has upped the income level for a child to qualify to $83,000 - FOUR times the poverty level (at least in New York) which is an income stretching the definition of "poverty" to the point of snapping.
* Not only that, but the Democrats' bill redefines a "child" as someone up to age 25, stretching the definition of "child" to  well, you know.
* There may be people who believe that if you can't afford health insurance for your kids, that's just too bad, but I am not one of them. The kids didn't ask to be born - and they certainly did not ask to be born into a family earning just 200% of the poverty level.
* Of course, the Popular Press has joined with its allies in the Democratic Party to portray President Bush as being anti-child. The Washington Post's Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman led their piece thus:
"President Bush yesterday vetoed a $35 billion expansion of a popular children's health insurance program, a move that left him as politically isolated as he has ever been and had even Republican allies questioning his hard-line strategy."
* President Bush made it clear that he wanted the Congress to send him a re-authorized SCHIP program which he could sign, but Democrats sent up a bill which the White House had warned was veto-bait.
* Why? So they could set up this exact discussion: Bush will argue in favor of tax cuts for the rich, while he vetoes health care for poor children.
* No main stream medium will write this, but the reality of the situation is: Congressional Democrats were willing to trade the health of children to score political points against the President.
* It is also true that if they can expand coverage to families up to 400% of the poverty line and individuals up to the age of 25, Democrats can go to 800% of poverty ($160,000 per year) and individuals up to 65 (when Medicare kicks in).
* National. Health. Insurance.
* I told a New York Times reporter when I was called about the political impact of the President's veto that for many - if not most - Republican primary voters, this expansion of the SCHIP program was not a step down the slippery slope of national health care - it was a four man bobsled on an Olympic run.
* He didn't use the quote.
I agree with this. BUT, unlike the lemmings on the left, doing the RIGHT thing is more important than marching lock-step with my lying party to win at all costs.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 9, 2007 10:48 AMhttp://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/10/09/dialing-down-the-rhetoric-on-schip.php
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 9, 2007 10:53 AMOn this issue, people of faith may differ, but for my interpretation of my faith, taking care of the kids comes before any ideology. So, at least my faith positions are on the record.
Posted by: WVH on October 9, 2007 12:07 PMSmarmy insulter replying. Dude, you still can't read.
This is my reply to you:
Hello Ragnar,
1. I think we can all agree that morons shouldn't have children, but many morons do So, do we support child labor and make the children of morons get jobs at three and pay for the education and schooling. You said:
"Government shouldn't be in the business of providing healthcare. We should be encouraging people to become self-sufficient, not becoming more and more dependent upon government services."
Guess what, in a perfect world where children have parents like you, this would be a great idea. Some children don't have parents like you, their parents are morons. So, is it tough luck, the kid suffers?
2. I am not focused on this particular piece of legislation, is there a principle that children in need should be educated and have adequate health care, no matter how that occurs.
Now, many people that support the principle that needy children should have health care and be educated are not focused on this particular piece of legislation. We support the principle.
Here is an insult for you, You ought to be thankful the New York Times didn't print your bobsled quote, that saved you from being known internationally as a sanctimonous jerk.
Over and out from smarmy.
Posted by: WVH on October 9, 2007 12:15 PM
-- even the kids (or at least their parents).
One Republican attack group is raising questions about the net worth of a Baltimore couple whose son has become something of a poster child for the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program that President Bush vetoed last week.
Apparently, Bonnie and Halsey Frost own two properties in Baltimore with a combined value of more than $420,000, according to an advance copy of an article by the Majority Accountability Project. The couple also sends two of their children to the Park School, a private school with an annual tuition of $19,500, the group reports.
Graeme Frost, the couple's 12-year-old son who receives coverage under the popular state-run, federally funded SCHIP, delivered the Democratic response to the president's weekly radio address last month amid much fanfare drummed up by congressional Democrats.
Republicans have argued somewhat strenuously that the legislation Democrats crafted would expand the program to families well above the intended income level, provoking many to drop private health care plans for their children in exchange for government-funded coverage.
The program was created to provide health coverage for children in families who make more than the federal poverty level but struggle to afford private insurance.
No kidding. And the problem IS that you nose under the tent camels want to INVENT more "needy" kids... those whose papa's earn up to $83,000. The want to ADD illegal kids. They want to MAKE 24 yr old kids.
Define "needy".
I sincerly doubt you'll dare.
And, with your penchant for the insult and your clearly evident glee on looking down your nose at those who disagree with you, I charge that you are not doing a great job of LIVING the Catholism the nuns attempted to teach you.
Glad to provide a chuckle. You said:
1. 38. I'm tired of your petty assumptions
- that I don't read
- that I cannot think for myself
- that I need a "pal" or a "rat pack'
- that I am a male
- that I favor letting children die.
This is the ugliest and cheapest form of debate.
2. Obviously a family making $80,000 is not in poverty, if they committ fraud like the contractors in Iraq, they should be dealt with. Here is the US Census Definition:
How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty
(Official Measure)
Income used to compute poverty status
Measure of need (poverty thresholds)
Computation
Example
People whose poverty status cannot be determined
Authority behind official poverty measure
History
Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).
Income
used to compute
poverty status:
Money income
Includes earnings, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, veterans' payments, survivor benefits, pension or retirement income, interest, dividends, rents, royalties, income from estates, trusts, educational assistance, alimony, child support, assistance from outside the household, and other miscellaneous sources.
Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) do not count.
Before taxes.
Excludes capital gains or losses.
If a person lives with a family, add up the incomeof all family members. (Non-relatives, such as housemates, do not count.)
Measure of need
(poverty thresholds):
Poverty thresholds are the dollar amounts used to determine poverty status
Each person or family is assigned one out of 48 possible poverty thresholds
Thresholds vary according to:
Size of the family
Ages of the members
The same thresholds are used throughout the United States(do not vary geographically)
Updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
Although the thresholds in some sense reflect families needs,
they are intended for use as a statistical yardstick, not as a complete description of what people and families need to live
many government aid programs use a different poverty measure, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines, or multiples thereof
Poverty thresholds were originally derived in 1963-1964, using:
U.S. Department of Agriculture food budgets designed for families under economic stress
Data about what portion of their income families spent on food
Computation:
If total family income is less than the threshold appropriate for that family,
the family is in poverty
all family members have the same poverty status
for individuals who do not live with family members,their own income is compared with the appropriate threshold
If total family income equals or is greater than the threshold,the family (or unrelated individual) is not in poverty
Example:
Family A has five members: two children, their mother, father, and great-aunt.
Their threshold was $24,662 dollars in 2006. (See poverty thresholds for 2006)
Suppose the members' incomes in 2006 were:
Mother: $10,000
Father: 5,000
Great-aunt: 10,000
First child: 0
Second child: 0
Total family income: $25,000
Compare total family income with their family's threshold.
Income / Threshold = $25,000 / $24,662 = 1.01
Since their income was greater than their threshold, Family A is not "in poverty" according to the official definition.
The income divided by the threshold is called the Ratio of Income to Poverty.
Family A's ratio of income to poverty was 1.01.
The difference in dollars between family income and the family's poverty threshold is called the Income Deficit (for families in poverty) or Income Surplus (for families above poverty)
-- Family A's income surplus was $338 (or $25,000 - $24,662).
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html
The census defines poverty.
Posted by: WVH on October 9, 2007 09:49 PM
As I understand your arguments on the principle that NEEDY children should receive a good basic education and health, let's review and since none of you are shrinking violets, if I misstate your positions, I know that I will be corrected:
1. Pudge thinks that most actions by the Federal government are unconsitution excercises of power, but the income tax is not per se illegal.
2. Bruce G. thinks that government does not have a role in most programs and certainly not in providing health care to NEEDY children. The government that governs best, governs least.
3. Ragnar thinks us "socialists" want to hold a gun to his head and steal his money.
The others Eyago, JDH, Army Medic/Vet do not see a role for government and in various forms all of you believe that private charity is sufficient to take care of all needs.
I honestly don't know how each of you feels about government action to restrict abortions. I am pretty sure that Pudge and Eyago are pro-life, I'm not so sure about the others. Let's play the following game:
1. Why should there be any government involvement either state or local in the issue of abortion. After all, the government that governs best governs least? Isn't that libertarian?
2. Why should society be responsible for children that a woman or couple can't care for? Isn't it their personal duty to abort so that the child won't be a burden on society?
3. Isn't libertarianism about the maximum personal freedom for each individual? So, why shouldn't a woman have the right to choose to abort her child?
So, given the philospohies espoused by you gentlemen, we really should have abortion kiosks at malls and start signing people up, right? After all, government has no business intruding and isn't forcing a woman to have a child really holding a gun to her head?
Posted by: WVH on October 9, 2007 10:05 PMActually, I think a thief is more honest than you socialists. A thief doesn't hide his intent: he wants my money and does what it takes to get it. You socialists hide behind the "greater good", the children, the "common good" to take from my pockets. I'd rather take my chances with an honest thief any day.
ps, FYI the corrct usage is not "us socialists", it's "WE socialists". ... yeah call me the 'grammar police'
Medical Competition Works for Patients
October 10, 2007
By John Stossel
Health-care costs overall have been rising faster than inflation, but not all medical costs are skyrocketing. In a few pockets of medicine, costs are down while quality is up.
Dr. Brian Bonanni has an unusual medical practice. His office is open Saturdays. He e-mails his patients and gives them his cell-phone number.
"I need to be available 24 hours a day," he says. "I want to be there when a patient has questions, and I want to be reachable."
I'll bet your doctor doesn't say that. Bonanni knows he has to please his patients, not some insurance company or the government, because he's paid by his patients. He's a laser eye surgeon. Insurance rarely covers what he does: reshaping eyes so people can see without glasses.
His patients shop around before coming to him. They ask a question that people relying on insurance don't ask: "How much will that cost?"
"I can't get away with not telling the patient how much exactly it's going to cost," Bonanni says. "No one would put up with it. And the difference of a hundred dollars sometimes makes their decision for them."
He has to compete for his patients' business. One result of that is lower prices. And while the procedure got cheaper, it also got better. Today's lasers are faster and more precise.
Prices have fallen and quality has risen in other medical fields where most people pay for care themselves, like cosmetic surgery. Consumer power works -- even in medicine.
When government and insurance companies are kept away from the transaction, good new things happen.
A doctor in Tennessee I talked to publishes his low prices, such as $40 for an office visit.
Most doctors would say you can't make money this way. But Dr. Robert Berry told me you can. "Last year, I made about the average of what a primary-care physician makes in this country," he said.
Berry doesn't accept insurance. That saves him money because he doesn't have to hire a staff to process insurance claims, and he never has to fight with companies to get paid.
His mostly uninsured patients save money, too. Unlike doctors trapped in the insurance maze, Berry works with his patients to find ways to save them money.
"It's coming out of their pockets. And they're afraid. They don't know how much it's going to cost. So I can tell them, 'OK, you have heartburn. Let's start out with generic Zantac, which costs around five dollars a month.'" When his patients ask about expensive prescription medicines they see advertised on television, he tells them, "They're great medicines, but why don't you try this one first and see if it works?"
Sometimes the $4 pills from Wal-Mart are just as good as the $100 ones.
Speaking of Wal-Mart, medical clinics are popping up in Wal-Mart stores and in other similar markets. The clinics offer people with simple problems like sore throats and ear infections relatively hassle-free care ... cheap. Almost everything costs $59 or less. And the clinics are typically open seven days a week.
Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a health-policy research organization, explains how these clinics thrive: "They're figuring how to do something faster, better, cheaper! They're responding to consumer demand because they see that they might make some money on this."
When consumers pay for medicine themselves, saving insurance for the big things, and doctors deal directly with consumers, doctors begin to compete. They start posting prices and work to keep them low.
And consumers gain more control of their health care. Instead of governments and insurance companies deciding for patients, patients decide.
Competition gives consumers more choices. And choice gives them power. Remember that when you hear a politician promise to make health case accessible and affordable through the force of government.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 9, 2007 10:56 PMIt's us "socialists" as we are dumb according to your universe. Anyhow, you didn't answer my points in post 119. So, is it abortion on demand?
Also, all the posts that you post, particularly 120 are really about adult working people. I understand there is a medical practice in king County built upon the model described by Stoessel. I am specifically asking how NEEDY children are to be covered? Many waorking people probably would not be adverse to the type of practice described.
So, given that you are, I take it in addition to being the grammar police, a libertarian, I suspect that you want to direct part of your weekly tithe from the pubbies to NARAL because a child that is not born can't put a gun to your head and that would solve the problem of NEEDY children asking for handouts, right?
Posted by: WVH on October 10, 2007 12:00 AMIf one believes that a fetus becomes a human with full human rights at the time of conception, then one might decide that the fetus/baby's right to life overrides the mother's right to liberty. However, if one believes that the fetus does not become a human with a right to life until some later point, then one might fall on the side of the liberty of the mother.
The libertarian view is that one persons needs do not make a moral claim on others' life liberty or property, which is why you are running into such opposition from libertarians here on FORCED charity on the citizenry. I believe libertarians are as charitable as other charity-minded citizens, we just do not believe, on principle, that that charity should be forced by government intervention. The big difference between providing for people via charity versus government is in how it is viewed by the recipients and how it is distributed by the provider. A charity can better distinguish between the deserving needy and the undeserving needy. People are much more likely to feel thanks for charity and feel that they do not want to have to rely on it. However, when the government provides it, it is looked at as an entitlement (in fact, we call them "entitlements") and the recipients feel no responsibility to be thankful or a responsibility not to misuse it.
Call libertarians names and think that they are all heartless if you want, but, not speaking for all libertarians, but only for myself, I think providing for those in need via charity rather than via the government is not only the best way to do so, but also the moral way to do so. If you think otherwise, fine, but I don't think you are going to change many libertarian minds by calling names or acting "holier than thou".
It's a cheap way for a politician to say he "cares" by spending other people's money--it would be more impressive to me if he/she showed it by spending their own money. The following link shows this libertarian view as expressed by Davey Crockett. Davey Crockett on Charity and Congress
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 08:57 AMIf you're atheist, then I presume that the latter is unlikely. But the former makes no logical sense. Arbitrarily recognized rights got us slavery. That is simply not an acceptable way for a libertarian to operate.
An atheist libertarian, who believes in science, to me has no option but to look to, at the very latest, when the baby has a functioning brain, producing detectable brain waves, which is late in the first semester or early in the second.
Posted by: pudge on October 10, 2007 09:24 AMI was brought up as a Catholic and so obviously my background would make me against all abortion. However, in fact, I do think they should be allowed early in the pregnancy but should not be used as a "birth control method".
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 10:24 AMOthers have pretty much answered as I would your abortion question, but I will give my answers anyway.
1. Why should there be any government involvement either state or local in the issue of abortion. After all, the government that governs best governs least? Isn't that libertarian?
Why should government be involved in the issue of murder? Isn't that intervention as well? If we have laws against murder, then we are not being inconsistent in asking for laws against killing in all forms IF we believe that life begins at conception. There is no conflict there.
Why should society be responsible for children that a woman or couple can't care for? Isn't it their personal duty to abort so that the child won't be a burden on society?
Society, if it wishes to act morally SHOULD take responsibility when it is abdicated by those who should have taken personal responsibility. I disagree with the method, not the need. If you ask every adult in America whether we should make sure that all children have needed medical care then each who answers yes must be also willing to contribute to that end. If they will not do it voluntarily, they are hypocrites. I do not believe in forcing people to do it, I would much prefer to point out the inconsistency between their desire and their action. I also feel that the FEDERAL government is a poor choice for managing this process. However, I will render unto Caesar what is his if the law is passed.
Isn't libertarianism about the maximum personal freedom for each individual? So, why shouldn't a woman have the right to choose to abort her child?
The same reason I do not have the right to kill my children now if I decide that they are too much of an inconvenience to my personal plans. Some days I think my children are a major restriction to my personal freedom, but then I understand and support another, more difficult, philosophy called personal responsibility.
The others Eyago, JDH, Army Medic/Vet do not see a role for government and in various forms all of you believe that private charity is sufficient to take care of all needs.
Not exactly, no. I think that if there is enough money for the government to do the job, and there is clearly enough people in America who believe that the need is worthwhile, that they should easily be able to fund it by giving to charity what they ask the government to take out of their income. There is nothing magical about where the government gets its money. It is the same money from the same sources. The government is reasonably good about collecting the money, but rather poor at spending it. Take the money to give to the feds and instead give it to a good Catholic hospital, or Shriners or many other established and effective groups and you will get a much better return.
And before you go off, let me say that if as much energy was put into expressing the actual need of children with the understanding that it takes people to personally give rather than rely on the government, there would be enough money arriving to do so. It does not happen now because we expect it to come from the government and know that we have paid taxes to that effect. Change the paradigm and the habits will change as well.
The fact is, charities receive tons of money even though the government is supposed to be taking care of all of us. I think people will give when they know what it is they are funding. If you spent half the time trying to convince people to exchange their 2nd plasma TV and give to a needy person as you do trying to get them to make the government take their money by force maybe things might start to change.
Posted by: Eyago on October 10, 2007 10:29 AMYou said:
"Why should government be involved in the issue of murder?"
The point is that not all people believe that abortion is murder because the baby doesn't have a soul until it is born and therefore it is not a human until it is born.
You said:
"I also feel that the FEDERAL government is a poor choice for managing this process. However, I will render unto Caesar what is his if the law is passed."
"If you spent half the time trying to convince people to exchange their 2nd plasma TV and give to a needy person as you do trying to get them to make the government take their money by force maybe things might start to change."
1. Not all people feel abortion is murder, what right do you have to force your views on them?
2. So, the people that want NEEDY children covered have to spend time convincing people to give up their 2nd plasma tv. Well, if I can't convince people that abortion is murder, how am I personally supposed to convince them to be altruisic. The Hoover study points out that most altruism occurs within a philosophical framework of faith. Lacking that faith perspective, most will keep their second tv. After all, my arguments have been oh so successful with the Rat Pack. In fact, Ragnar says I'd have to put a gun to his head to get a dime out of him. That is where your everything will be handled by charity paradigm fails. Without a personal feeling of altruism, people don't give. So, I guess it is with some of the Pharisees of the Christian persuasion, suffer little children.
Posted by: WVH on October 10, 2007 10:59 AMThe problem is you can't, because if the dollar figure for NEEDY is $23,462, then the guy that makes $23,486 is going to prove that he is needy as well. The problem with your "solutions" are that "needy" will become an ever upward evolving thing. When your Robin Hood Reid and his merry band of thieves make the threshold "needy" $83,00 then what? Will I be needy at $85,000?
Of course, Robin Hood Reid wants MORE folks defined as needy so he and Whoribillary can bribe... er make promises for votes, a la her $5000 for every kid born and $1000 to fund a 401K for everyone. Oh gee, let's see, who doesn't want "free money' or something for "nothing"?
There have always been poverty and the "needy" and there always will be. GOVERNMENTS can do only so much before what they are asked to do causes complete failure. Two very perfects examples of that are the failing socialist health care industries in both Canada and UK. Just this past week I read an article that said things are so dire in the UK that they are now hiring (outsourcing!) PRIVATE services from us.
Furthermore, who defines "medical needy"? Is Nancy's snot nosed kid with a cold medically needy? I think not.
You want a solution, I'll give you a solution - but you ain't going to like it.
1. Put a number on poverty, a monetary line in the sand that says if you are one penny above this line you are not needy.
2. Put an age limit on being a "child".
Isn't it amazing that you liberals scream about the PRIVACY of a child so that now parents can't even be given their medical/educational records without the kids consent, but you are willing to call a 24 yr old man or woman a "child". The age of majority in this country is 18. When you cross the line into adulthood, YOU are responsible for your life, YOU are responsible to take care of your own health and YOU are responsible to find sources OUTSIDE taxpayer dollars to aid you.
3. Set up a fund, much like Red Cross or Catholic Charities have - one that is managed by a firm TOTALLY oustside the government. No sticky finger Whoribillary's allowed- that those that need the above line may draw, HOWEVER, they may only use it for vaccines and catastophic illnesses. Nancy can't bring her snot-nosed kid in to have a doctor I'm paying for tell her to go home and give the kid some soup. Poor little Nancy being mocked in the playground for floppy ears is NOT a medical catastophe either.
4. You aren't a legitimate US citizen: NO BENEFITS .. period and yes mean nasty old Ragnar includes their kids, where ever they were born.
5. You aren't working to improve your lot in life: loss of benefits (much like 'welfare to work'
6> Mandatory community service. There IS no such thing as something for nothing. There are hospitals full of people that need to be read to, there is garbage on the roads that needs to be picked up, there are weeds to be pulled in parks, there are public facilities that need a good cleaning, there are libraries that need books shelved, there are fat cat bureaucrats that need mail sorted. There is plenty of PRIVATE INDUSTRY that need menial labor in exchange for CONTRIBUTION into the fund.... and of course, there are all you ever so well intended do-gooders who will willing and often write big fat checks over and above your onerous taxes to fund this pet project about which you are so passionate...after all, "it's for the children" )and if the rich fat cats like Pelosi, Kennedys ad infinitum, Kerry, Reid and Clinton are writing big fat checks.... /sarcasm)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 10, 2007 11:36 AM" The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent. "
... but whether or not you are smart enough to be appalled by it you damned well better to get used to it, because when Whoribillary finally realizes she can't afford to pay for her promised boondoggles, she will most certainly be taking advantage of it to use against YOU.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 10, 2007 11:55 AMMaybe I should have paid more attention to this line:
Let's play the following game:
rather than the questions that followed. It assumed that you wanted to know how someone could support laws against abortion with a libertarian view. So when you replied to my response with:
he point is that not all people believe that abortion is murder because the baby doesn't have a soul until it is born and therefore it is not a human until it is born.
You are playing "Calvin ball" and changing the rules as you go along. That is not what your line of questioning implied. Stop playing games. It is consistent for me to believe that the government should not force charity at the same time government should enforce the Life part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Not all people feel abortion is murder, what right do you have to force your views on them?
The same right I believe the abolitionists had to impose THEIR view on the country 200 or so years ago. Next question.
Well, if I can't convince people that abortion is murder, how am I personally supposed to convince them to be altruisic.
People are already altruistic, you just need to stop trying to interject government intervention in the process and let people know that the same money they give to the government can be given to more efficient and humanitarian institutions. Heh, maybe the liberals can just mark on their w-4 to have the government take it out as a tax but then simply place the cash gathered right in the coffers of a designated charity. Government collects the money just like they like it, but the charity does the work, just as it should be. But instead, you invest your efforts in expanding the secular, socialist agenda to the detriment of true charity. Again, if all those secular humanists who believe that the children really need help, why don't they just give directly? Your efforts will run counter to faith and true charity and steer this country to the European model where faith and charity are practically squeezed out and secular humanism rules the roost.
he Hoover study points out that most altruism occurs within a philosophical framework of faith. Lacking that faith perspective, most will keep their second tv.
Exactly, and the more we turn our responsibilities over to a government intent on driving faith from the pubic sphere the fewer and fewer members of the faith community we will have, necessitating even more government intervention in the realms formally handled by the faith community, thus diminishing the faith community, necessitating more government takeover, etc. The individual plan was good enough for Christ, I think it should be good enough for us.
After all, my arguments have been oh so successful with the Rat Pack.
Non sequitur. Your arguments fail because you are arguing for government programs. You have no idea whether this has impacted their charitable outlook nor even if it is needed since you have no idea what any of us do charity-wise. Try discussing the issue rather than making ad-hominems.
In fact, Ragnar says I'd have to put a gun to his head to get a dime out of him. That is where your everything will be handled by charity paradigm fails.
Ragnar said no such thing. Again you have no idea what SHE is giving. She simply does not appreciate it being done by force.
Without a personal feeling of altruism, people don't give.
Not exactly true. People who think it is the government's role and think that the government is DOING that role will not give. You have no idea whether they will give under other circumstances. All you can say is that people of faith are willing to give despite the government role. You also do not know how much money would be freed up if taxes were reduced. You have no faith in the faith community to rise to the need, and you discount any chance that the seculars will also step up once they know that children will go hungry without their personal giving. You are unwilling to accept that risk.
So, I guess it is with some of the Pharisees of the Christian persuasion, suffer little children.
You keep tossing that slur around in nearly every post and frankly it's beginning to really irritate me. Define it and explain how it fits me because your use of it seems quite uncharitable and uncalled for. You don't know me or what I do, but you are willing to paint me a vile person because I do not agree with your socialist viewpoint on this issue. Back it up.
Posted by: Eyago on October 10, 2007 12:43 PMThe official defintion of poverty is from the US census. This is the dictionary defintion of "needy" and the lame argument made by you that someone making $83,000 is needy and comes within the census definition is lame. The dictionary definition is:
"Noun 1. needy - needy people collectively; "they try to help the needy"
poor, poor people - people without possessions or wealth (considered as a group); "the urban poor need assistance"
Adj. 1. needy - poor enough to need help from others
destitute, impoverished, indigent, necessitous, poverty-stricken
poor - having little money or few possessions; "deplored the gap between rich and poor countries"; "the proverbial poor artist living in a garret"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/needy
So, let's deal with the definition of needy by the census. The comments about being 18 and being responsble, that is a whole other debate. I volunteer at an agency which helps homeless kids and kids aging out of foster care, there is simply to much to answer you on that one.
So, pal deal with the facts of the sensus definition and not some fraud that you feel is occuring from a five year old.
Posted by: WVH on October 10, 2007 10:40 PM1. Many people do not believe abortion is musrder, simply because the do not believe a fetus is human. Some faith traditions do, in fact believe the soul does not enter the body until birth. If that becomes the majority opinion, should the government prevent abortion?
2. Why are you irritated, just like you can dis my opinion and call me vile, all I said was that in my opinion you were a Pharisee. Would you be happier if I called you legalistic instead? Here is an exerpt from an interesting article:
"....The difference, then, between the sinner and the Phariseethe hypocrite? The Pharisee protests to be perfect. They parade around judging others, never admitting to sin, putting on a show for man, that they are Godly. The true Christian sinner admits he is not perfect, but steadily tries. Goes to church not for show, but for help and encouragement, seeks to do God's will regardless of the praise or acknowledgment he might get from man.
The modern-day Pharisee really hasn't changed that much since Jesus' day. In Matt. 22, they tried to trap Jesus and test Him, trying to show He was not who He said He was. The modern Pharisee does the same to Christians they are threatened by, envious of, or that isn't like them. The Pharisees dress in the finest clothing and look down on those who don't. They call themselves Father, Brother, or Sister, in public to make known to men they are saved. Jesus says in Matt. 23: 25-56:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisees, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."
There are many ways here on earth to "clean the outside of the cup." We put on make-up, we dye our hair, we get our nails done, we go to the gym and tanning bed, and these days we even have plastic surgery. But no matter what we do to make our appearance Heavenly and perfect, these methods cannot clean what's inside. Even with all of these outward appearances, the Lord still knows what lies within. And most of the time a person's true colors will show to those who know them well here on earth too. Appearances fool only those that look only at appearances.
Peter speaks of the conscience often in I Peter chapters 2-4. He tries to encourage the Christians of that time to endure what I imagine to be the Pharisee-type's criticisms. Verse 16 of chapter 3 says, "Having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." And chapter 4 verse 4 says, "Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you." The modern-day Pharisee-type does the same thing to well-meaning Christians. I've personally been in this situation, which I suppose is why the modern-day Pharisee is such a hot button for me! I've had people I thought were my friends, family, and even other "Christians" speak evil of me and falsely accuse me based on my life in Christ. It especially doesn't feel good when someone you worship with makes fun of you for being "too zealous." Is there such thing as "too zealous?" This question could be a whole other article and ties back to last week's article on what's most important in your life? If God truly comes first, can you be too zealous? If someone says I'm too zealous, obviously we have different priorities. So how did I deal with being spoken ill of for trying to be like Christ? I wrote the other person off as a Pharisee, and acknowledged that these Pharisees of today will have to answer for their own conscience. They may be able to fool men on earth, but our God will hold them accountable for what's inside their cup. They can make over their outside appearances, but that won't fool God. And I pray for them. Matt. 12:36, "that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." God will know our true intentions in everything we say and do...."
The difference, then, between the sinner and the Phariseethe hypocrite? The Pharisee protests to be perfect. They parade around judging others, never admitting to sin, putting on a show for man, that they are Godly. The true Christian sinner admits he is not perfect, but steadily tries. Goes to church not for show, but for help and encouragement, seeks to do God's will regardless of the praise or acknowledgment he might get from man.
The modern-day Pharisee really hasn't changed that much since Jesus' day. In Matt. 22, they tried to trap Jesus and test Him, trying to show He was not who He said He was. The modern Pharisee does the same to Christians they are threatened by, envious of, or that isn't like them. The Pharisees dress in the finest clothing and look down on those who don't. They call themselves Father, Brother, or Sister, in public to make known to men they are saved. Jesus says in Matt. 23: 25-56:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisees, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."
There are many ways here on earth to "clean the outside of the cup." We put on make-up, we dye our hair, we get our nails done, we go to the gym and tanning bed, and these days we even have plastic surgery. But no matter what we do to make our appearance Heavenly and perfect, these methods cannot clean what's inside. Even with all of these outward appearances, the Lord still knows what lies within. And most of the time a person's true colors will show to those who know them well here on earth too. Appearances fool only those that look only at appearances.
Peter speaks of the conscience often in I Peter chapters 2-4. He tries to encourage the Christians of that time to endure what I imagine to be the Pharisee-type's criticisms. Verse 16 of chapter 3 says, "Having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." And chapter 4 verse 4 says, "Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you." The modern-day Pharisee-type does the same thing to well-meaning Christians. I've personally been in this situation, which I suppose is why the modern-day Pharisee is such a hot button for me! I've had people I thought were my friends, family, and even other "Christians" speak evil of me and falsely accuse me based on my life in Christ. It especially doesn't feel good when someone you worship with makes fun of you for being "too zealous." Is there such thing as "too zealous?" This question could be a whole other article and ties back to last week's article on what's most important in your life? If God truly comes first, can you be too zealous? If someone says I'm too zealous, obviously we have different priorities. So how did I deal with being spoken ill of for trying to be like Christ? I wrote the other person off as a Pharisee, and acknowledged that these Pharisees of today will have to answer for their own conscience. They may be able to fool men on earth, but our God will hold them accountable for what's inside their cup. They can make over their outside appearances, but that won't fool God. And I pray for them. Matt. 12:36, "that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." God will know our true intentions in everything we say and do.
The difference, then, between the sinner and the Phariseethe hypocrite? The Pharisee protests to be perfect. They parade around judging others, never admitting to sin, putting on a show for man, that they are Godly. The true Christian sinner admits he is not perfect, but steadily tries. Goes to church not for show, but for help and encouragement, seeks to do God's will regardless of the praise or acknowledgment he might get from man.
The modern-day Pharisee really hasn't changed that much since Jesus' day. In Matt. 22, they tried to trap Jesus and test Him, trying to show He was not who He said He was. The modern Pharisee does the same to Christians they are threatened by, envious of, or that isn't like them. The Pharisees dress in the finest clothing and look down on those who don't. They call themselves Father, Brother, or Sister, in public to make known to men they are saved. Jesus says in Matt. 23: 25-56:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisees, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."
There are many ways here on earth to "clean the outside of the cup." We put on make-up, we dye our hair, we get our nails done, we go to the gym and tanning bed, and these days we even have plastic surgery. But no matter what we do to make our appearance Heavenly and perfect, these methods cannot clean what's inside. Even with all of these outward appearances, the Lord still knows what lies within. And most of the time a person's true colors will show to those who know them well here on earth too. Appearances fool only those that look only at appearances.
Peter speaks of the conscience often in I Peter chapters 2-4. He tries to encourage the Christians of that time to endure what I imagine to be the Pharisee-type's criticisms. Verse 16 of chapter 3 says, "Having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." And chapter 4 verse 4 says, "Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you." The modern-day Pharisee-type does the same thing to well-meaning Christians. I've personally been in this situation, which I suppose is why the modern-day Pharisee is such a hot button for me! I've had people I thought were my friends, family, and even other "Christians" speak evil of me and falsely accuse me based on my life in Christ. It especially doesn't feel good when someone you worship with makes fun of you for being "too zealous." Is there such thing as "too zealous?" This question could be a whole other article and ties back to last week's article on what's most important in your life? If God truly comes first, can you be too zealous? If someone says I'm too zealous, obviously we have different priorities. So how did I deal with being spoken ill of for trying to be like Christ? I wrote the other person off as a Pharisee, and acknowledged that these Pharisees of today will have to answer for their own conscience. They may be able to fool men on earth, but our God will hold them accountable for what's inside their cup. They can make over their outside appearances, but that won't fool God. And I pray for them. Matt. 12:36, "that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." God will know our true intentions in everything we say and do.
http://www.helium.com/tm/494387/about-biggest-peeves-modern
Legalism is:
"....Legalism, definition number one: "Strict adherence to law, especially to the letter rather than the spirit" (The Random House College Dictionary, pg. 765). An example of this negative definition of legalism is perhaps seen in the case of the Pharisees (Jn. 8: 3 ff.). The scriptures do not teach robotic conformity to God's law. Love is seen as the essential motivation for obeying God's commandments. Hear John, "And this is love, that we walk after his commandments..." (2 Jn. 6). Again, "For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments..." (I Jn. 5: 3). Rigid and mechanical obedience to the letter of the law, such obedience being cold and empty will not suffice or avail (cp. Gal. 5: 6). Hence, this legalism is wrong. In this vein, one might assemble as required, but simply do so without worshipping in spirit (Heb. 10: 25, cp. Jn. 4: 24).
Legalism, definition number two: "2 Theology. B. The judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws" (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, pg. 818). I am not sure how to view this definition or nuance. God's authority, law, commandments, and obedience thereto are requisite to man's salvation and, also, to how man views others. Paul knew that Peter had sinned, by using the gospel as the standard (Gal 2: 11-14, see particularly verse 11 and 14). The Pharisees placed much emphasis on obeying commandments, at least ostensibly. However, when it came to obeying them themselves, they often failed (Matt. 23: 2-4). Moreover, those who walk disorderly (not obeying commandments) are to be withdrawn from by God's people (2 Thes. 3: 6). Therefore, definition number two is not necessarily bad, according to the scriptures...."
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR214.htm
I wasn't playing games with the definition of abortion as murder. Some people just don't feel that it is. Now, if an act of forced charity saved a life, is it wrong? If one accepts as a philosophy that abortion is not murder, then is an act of forced charity saves a life, is it wrong?
Sorry that I am making you uncomfortable.
Posted by: WVH on October 10, 2007 11:39 PMWhy are you irritated, just like you can dis my opinion and call me vile, all I said was that in my opinion you were a Pharisee.
Go back and check, I never called you vile. I never called you anything. I challenged only your interpretations of Christ's commandments and backed my view up with logical explanations of my position. I also challenged your logic and the value of your solution to the problem being discussed. I did not reject you as a person nor did I label you in any way but rather stuck to the specific issue and how your position would, in my estimation, produce results that are too negative than other possible solutions.
As for your references to Pharisitical behavior and legalism, I am totally confused. Nothing you cite seems to match any spirit in which I have approached this issue. At the very worst one might accuse me of holding too much to the spirit of Christ's teaching and not enough to the practical. I do take offense to the implication that I am suggesting that I am holier-than-thou and that I am looking down on anyone from a spiritual standpoint. If you really feel that simply because I disagree with YOUR interpretation of the Christian walk and Christ's call to charity, then the problem lies on your end not mine. I never judged your spirituality, your faith or your commitment to God. One should be able to debate the interpretations of Christ's commands without having to be branded.
So, when I asked you to "back it up", I did not mean for you to define the terms. I meant for you to detail in my postings HOW I was acting pharisitical and legalistic.
Many people do not believe abortion is musrder, simply because the do not believe a fetus is human. Some faith traditions do, in fact believe the soul does not enter the body until birth. If that becomes the majority opinion, should the government prevent abortion?
Are you comfortable using that same rationalization to defend the use of slavery? Is morality simply a matter of public polls? That is a secular-humanistic approach and should be rejected by Christians and those who hold to the philosophy of "Natural Law."
Now, if an act of forced charity saved a life, is it wrong?
Is blowing up an abortion clinic wrong? I don't mean legally wrong, though it is, but is it morally wrong? Is killing an abortion provider wrong? Both of those "acts" might be construed as "saving a life."
Forced charity is not Christian. There is simply no justification within the scriptures to say that we are expected to seize assets from one to give to others. We are only asked to give of our own. It is a form of coveting to look upon what someone else has and desire to use it for our own purposes, even if those purposes do not directly benefit us.
After the rich young ruler left Jesus without giving his wealth to the poor, do you see any mention of Jesus sending his Disciples off to confiscate the wealthy man's goods anyway? There was incredible poverty to be dealt with in Jesus day, yet he NEVER acted in that manner to solve the problem. It seems to be very irresponsible to think that we should do what Jesus did not, especially if we attempt to do it in His name.
So, yes, I do consider forced charity to be a violation of at least 2 commandments. But I don't consider this the same issue of "saving the donkey on Saturday" or the "eating grain in the field" legalism. The difference is in personal accountability. Using the "law" to prevent one from personally being charitable is wrong, but using the justification of charity to force someone is just as wrong.
Sorry that I am making you uncomfortable.
You are not making me uncomfortable, you are labeling unjustifiably.
Posted by: Eyago on October 11, 2007 05:30 AMJust curious, you said:
"So, yes, I do consider forced charity to be a violation of at least 2 commandments"
1. Which two Commandments?
2. Are you telling me that a program to help needy children, not those of parents making above the census definition of poverty or children that have no parents violates two Commandments? Which two?
3. An act of violence, like blowing up an abortion clinic obviously violates the Commandment of thou shall not kill. Don't tell me that the income tax system violates the Commandment of thou shall not steal because at that point you have to say the tax system is totally illegal and should be abolished. We have a representative government and if a majority of the representatives and a President sign legislation into to law allocating tax revenue toward a particular purpose, are you saying that is stealing and violates the Ten Commandments?
Bro, who is your pastor or priest? I would love to have some Bible study with them.
4. Not all faith traditions view abortion as murder, people with no faith tradition often do not view abortion as murder. So, if both of these groups assume majority legislative power in this country, they are right to use their power to expand abortion particularly if it is wrong to use governmental power to pay for the services to needy children, right? Any person using the courts, for example, to stop the expansion of this right, is not correct, I assume. Any person using any tax supported system for anything other than defense, in your view, is probably using forced charity. Am I right.
Anyhow, please name the Two Commandments?
Posted by: WVH on October 11, 2007 09:30 AMYou like to play "Calvin ball" a lot don't you? Set the rules, and when someone gets an advantage under those rules change the rules back to your advantage.
Here is what you asked:
Now, if an act of forced charity saved a life, is it wrong?
I answered that question that yes, and act of FORCED charity is wrong and DOES violate both the 8th and 10th commandments. You look upon your neighbor's property and desire its use for your purposes against his will, thus you covet his goods and advocate the taking of his goods which is simply a form of stealing.
This is different than your question of whether it is legal and moral for the government to levy taxes for whatever it wishes. As I said, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. I do not dispute the authority of the government to do that. What I am disputing is your claim that it is a CHRISTIAN duty to force charity. Context is everything. As a Christian, I may or may not support a particular tax that is being proposed if I feel that it is sound public policy, but I would not confuse it with charity or my role as a Christian to give charity as God expects, and I would certainly never call into question another Christian's faith, commitment, or charitableness based on their views on government tax policy.
Not all faith traditions view abortion as murder, people with no faith tradition often do not view abortion as murder. So, if both of these groups assume majority legislative power in this country, they are right to use their power to expand abortion particularly if it is wrong to use governmental power to pay for the services to needy children, right?
Sure, just like if our legislatures sanctions slavery and the ownership of people to use as one pleases including raping and killing at will and thus uses their power to expand slavery. After all not all faith traditions consider slavery immoral and not all think that all humans should receive full rights of life, and liberty.
Things are wrong because they are wrong, not because my government says they are or are not wrong.
I am still waiting to hear how I am legalistic and a Pharisee.
Are you saying that a needy child served under a health program violates two commandments, remember I am not advocating coverage for ME? I have my own coverage. To cover a needy child is stealing? Good, grief.
If that is what you are saying, then yes you are a Pharisee and Legalistic. What church do you go to? What is the name of your pastor or priest, are they in agreement with your theology?
I leave you with this:
I wish you and the rest of the rat pack all the blessings in this life and I hope that you enjoy all your worldly goods in this life.
Posted by: WVH on October 11, 2007 12:04 PMI think you are blinded by your desires and choose not to see the very clear distinction I am making between public policy and Christian belief. Send me an email at the address I list on these posts and I will be happy to have you email my pastor and ask him all about my materialistic and legalistic tendencies. I am sure it will be helpful to him to know this. I welcome the debate and will take correction that is Biblical and reasoned, so if you feel my pastor can assist in that feel free to make use of his expertise.
I am saying that forcing charity is a violation of the 2 commandments if you are using it in a Christian context, not that secular government social programs. When you choose to make public policy a matter of Christian conscience, you need to consider the consequences of such positions. If you think Christ commands us to confiscate money for our chosen purposes, no matter how Godly you think they are, you are over-stepping your position.
Posted by: Eyago on October 11, 2007 12:55 PMYou ovbviously haven't been reading kiddo, because the $80,000+ figure COMES FROM THE DEOMCRAP PROPOSAL THE THE PREESIDENT VETOED.
200% of the poverty level is exactly what Robin Hood Reid and his merry band of thieves was demanding.
So, pal deal with the facts of the your thieving pals and the bill itself and not some Kooliad flavored fraud you've been spoon fed by Move-On.org,
***
This bill was not about helping children of low-income families. It was about growing state-controlled single-payer health care coverage and political gamesmanship. Such coverage will damage the health care system all children need.
Medicaid already provides free health care for children living in poverty. Most of those children are in families making less than $20,000 a year.
SCHIP applies to families making too much to qualify for Medicaid. Presently, most of the program's recipients are in families making between $20,000 and $40,000 a year.
But, many recipients under the bill passed by Congress would be children in families making $60,000 or more.
That's not a program to assist those of low income. That's the expansion of middle-class reliance on government-controlled health care. It creates a new government entitlement.
Our nation's concern for the poor should not be exploited for the purpose of government expansion.
Government-run systems waste countless of billions of dollars and take decisions away from patients and doctors, putting them in the hands of government bureaucrats. Medical careers then pay less and attract less-talented people. Lack of incentives hurt research and development of new medicines and techniques. And, lack of accountability means lower quality of care and fewer choices for patients. The whole system suffers.
The bill President Bush vetoed was a step in that direction. With SCHIP expansion into the middle class, government's role increases. A critical mass of middle-class voters, dependent upon SCHIP for care, would demand broader coverage for more people. Within a generation, enough voters would be on it that popular support would be there for government-run health care. That's the political game plan.
The thought of those children lacking good care is unacceptable. The original SCHIP was designed to help them. It should not be transformed into a middle-class entitlement that would eventually degrade our entire health care system. It must remain focused on helping children of low-income working families. -Ken Blackwell
***
"If [Democrats] can expand [SCHIP] coverage to families up to 400% of the poverty line and individuals up to the age of 25, Democrats can go to 800% of poverty ($160,000 per year) and individuals up to 65 (when Medicare kicks in). National. Health. Insurance." --Rich Galen
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 11, 2007 01:55 PMAre you are patient that is brain dead or do you just play one on this site?
1. How many times geezer have I stated that I am not tied to a particular piece of legislation, but to the principle that needy children should have health care?
You said:
You ovbviously haven't been reading kiddo, because the $80,000+ figure COMES FROM THE DEOMCRAP PROPOSAL THE THE PREESIDENT VETOED.
Now, didn't one of your favorite president's say watch my lips. I assume that the were not using they official US census definition of poverty which is not that figure. Also, let's repeat, I am not tied to a particular piece of legislation.
Is the pubbie position that the answer is no on the principle that needy children should be cared for? If so, state that the party is against theat principle and voters get to choose based upon the issues.
This is my response to Chris N:
107. Chris N,
I like you and your idea. Unfortunately, neither side is clean here. The dem leadership wants the bill to fail so they can beat pubbies up with the issue. I am an indie because both sides play politics and yes, the kids suffer. I do agree with you, however.
Posted by WVH at October 8, 2007 09:52 PM
I know that you are wealthy, guess you must have inherited it.
Eyago,
What denomination do you belong to and do they have a web site about what their beliefs are and what their theology is? Would you provide the link. I love studying theology.
Game, set, match.
How many times geezer have I stated that I am not tied to a particular piece of legislation, but to the principle that needy children should have health care?
Yet, you hide behind your insults to studiously AVOID the question 'What IS needy? Define it. What is 'medically needy'? Define it.'
You CAN'T and you won't because you know that
a) it can't BE defined and
b) any possible definition your little imagination can conjure would be easily debunked in less than 19 seconds.
Is the pubbie position that the answer is no on the principle that needy children should be cared for?
Cute little pet STRAW DOG and a typically cheap form of debate, especially when you know that it is patently untrue and that we do not carry the official word for the "pubbie" party. And, speaking of the "pubbie" tell us again what a good conservative you are, how you will not vote for liberals. Your own words betray you and you are so wrapped in your own smug sactimony you don't even see it.
What denomination do you belong to and do they have a web site about what their beliefs are and what their theology is? Would you provide the link. I love studying theology.
BULLSH*T. You like to find weapons to beat up opponents you can't match with ideas and/or intellectual thought.
Nice try.
You need a hobby, dude.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 12, 2007 11:27 AMI am not a dude, I am a woman, you geezer.
1.You are still brain dead. I did define needy at at the posts above and I gave you the US census defintion. You simply can't read and you don't like the definition. When it comes to insults, bain-dead, you can throw them out, but you can't take it. Yup, I was right you did inherit the wealth, didn't you?
2. I am a conservative, but I am an indie and I ceratinly am not brain-dead. Also, my religion comes before a knee-jerk reposnse. I have voted for candidates of all parties. So, if the republicans or pubbies as I call them come out for the principle that needy children should be covered, does that mean you will stop writing checks?
3. I am not afraid to give you, Eyago and others the theological basis for my arguments on this issue and here it is, it is:
"Social Justice -A Basic Introduction"
Social Justice -A Basic Introduction
Some Definitions
Where We Get Our Identity
Our Mission
The Goals of Social Justice and Parish Outreach
Vatican II
Things You Should Know
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Social Justice Prayer
The Four Main Aspects of Social Justice
Bishops' Statements-NCCB/USCC
Points To Remember
Social Justice Website Links
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/sj/socjust.shtml
I suppose that Eyago and your theology is a convenient buttress for your political ideology and the politics comes first, right?
You ar still brain-dead.
Posted by: WVH on October 12, 2007 11:45 AM1.You are still brain dead.
ONCE AGAIN: GAME, SET, MATCH. Once you devolve so spectacularly into insult you have lost. Congratulations, you do it so well.
ps: I noticed that yet again you tried to deflect an answer to a direct question with an insult ... it must really suck to be so obviously vacuous.
You aren't conservative, but you use it as a convenient label that allows you to post your nonsense here with out guilt and/or misguided moral superiority. Whatever, dude.
As a practicing Catholic, as a practicing Catholic, born and raised in the TRADITIONAL Catholism that is no where to be found here on the left coast, your lip service to our religion is laughable. Granted, being a left-coast "Catholic", some of your misguided, so-called faith, is not your fault. I have no doubt that you fall right in line with your (sadly our) 'finger in the wind', political salivating Archbishop. I don't. But I will continue to pray that one day you will wake up... and grow up.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 12, 2007 12:06 PM1. You still havn't answered the inherited wealth question. If you inherited wealth, does that mean that others pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
2. Now, from your diatrbe above, You said:
"ps: I noticed that yet again you tried to deflect an answer to a direct question with an insult ... it must really suck to be so obviously vacuous.
You aren't conservative, but you use it as a convenient label that allows you to post your nonsense here with out guilt and/or misguided moral superiority. Whatever, dude."
Now, what other than the fact I want needy children taken care of, points you to the direction that I am not conservative. Also, you insult people, but can't take an insult. You must have led a privledged sheltered life. Maybe if you had pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, you wouldn't be so sensitive.
3. Now, if you dispute the statement on social justice, what is your theological basis for what you believe other than saying the following
"As a practicing Catholic, as a practicing Catholic, born and raised in the TRADITIONAL Catholism that is no where to be found here on the left coast, your lip service to our religion is laughable. Granted, being a left-coast "Catholic", some of your misguided, so-called faith, is not your fault. I have no doubt that you fall right in line with your (sadly our) 'finger in the wind', political salivating Archbishop. I don't. But I will continue to pray that one day you will wake up... and grow up."
So, are you attacking me for following Church doctrine like Vatican II? Is that your point that you disagree with Vatican II? So, please state your theological basis other than some unspecified attack. I guess inherited wealth allows you to buy a theology as well.
Posted by: WVH on October 12, 2007 12:19 PMYou are really quite good at throwing out unsubstantiated wild comments and convincing yourself they are FACTS. You infer that YOU KNOW things about which you do not and could not possibly have a clue and then attmpt to move forward from that false inference. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it comes from your well exampled immaturity... at least I certainly hope it does.
And, I hate to burst your bubble dude/babe, but I never even SAW any question you posited about inherited wealth. However by your sneering use of the term, I will ASSume, as you are wont to do, that you sneer out of envy.
You have a cute but uneffective habit of throwing out as many accusations as you possible can and then convince yourself you are participating in debate. You have another cute little habit of changing the subject and presenting straw dogs. Unfortunately, those, as well as your quick choice to insult are sad techniques usually utilized by those without ability to withstand the heat of the actual debate. It's very reminiscent of your gal Whorribillary and her ilk. Perhaps you should strive to emulate someone a bit more deserving of adulation.
As, yes for your information, I do think most of what came out of Vatican II was a supreme failed experiment that led our Church to the convoluted mess it is now. Vatican II is exactly the reason left-coast Catholics can think they can do their own "thing" and convince themselves they are still Catholic and the likes of Brunett are in leadership. I think the lack of direction that is the direct result of Vatican II is what allows you to convince yourself you are faithful to the Church. Thank God, for Benedict.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 12, 2007 12:50 PMWhat the HELL does that even mean? Do YOU even know? Or is it yet another of your failed attempts at a dead straw dog?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 12, 2007 12:57 PMOn the issue of inherited wealth or any wealth for that matter. No, I do not envy that status and I particularly do not envy you. Scripture tells that people are given gifts by the Spirit for the use of God's purposes. To whom much is given, much is expected and since each of us will face a Judgement, we will each be judged on how we used what was given to us. So, you do with what was given to you as you choose.
This has been as fascinating discussion about the principle of whether needy children should have health care. It was partly about this particular piece of legislation, but not really. It was really about a principle and whether you like Vatican II or not, social justice and caring for the poor has a long history in the Church. I don't think Benedict is going to change that.
Posted by: WVH on October 12, 2007 01:04 PMYes, by the voluntary generosity of its members, not by the theft by government sanctioned thieves. You need to stop confusing the two.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 12, 2007 01:11 PMYou continue to foment division and strive rather than to seek community. You continue to use names and ad-hominems contrary to your own cited source for your justification of your view on social justice.
I reviews your social justice web cite link. Let me give you my view of this in light of our current discussion.
Social Service is giving direct aid to someone in need.
Social Action is correcting the structures that perpetuate the need.
Note that this is not the same as forcing someone to conduct social services against their will. Here is the example they use:
An example of this would be, someone comes to your food pantry, and tells you he/she has no food, because he/she lost their job recently. You may know of an employer looking to hire someone right away for a job requiring little or no skills. You give that person food, then place that person in touch with the employer. You then would have solved both problems for that person. (a) the immediate need of food through an act of charity (social service) and (b) you would have corrected the problem which created and perpetuated the need. (social justice)
Notice that it does NOT say that to solve this problem we must force perpetual food handouts to the needy person. That does NOTHING to deal with the problem that created the need. There are several issues involved with the problem of insurance needs for children, and there are many possible solutions including making medical costs cheaper, removing structures that add costs to health care, changing market conditions that drive insurance rates up, changing the requirements that artificially inflate costs of insurance by mandating things that are not desired by the consumer and many other issues. Simply by paying for health insurance for a needy person does not solve the underlying problem that makes health care and insurance unobtainable in the first place. Your dogmatic emphasis on only one solution and maligning others who propose other ideas shows you as an inflexible idealogue who is not interested in solutions but being right.
From the catechism:
This is the path of charity, that is, of the love of God and of neighbor. Charity is the greatest SOCIAL commandment. It respects others and their rights. It requires the practice of JUSTICE, and it alone makes us capable of it. Charity inspires a life of self-giving:...
Notice that it says: It respects others and their rights. Something that seems to be lacking in your demeanor. It also says: Charity inspires a life of self-giving... which is something that I have been saying over and over that you seem particularly good at ignoring. I see nowhere in the catechism requirements for making your neighbor give. Which is as it should be since Christ also never said it.
Fraud and other subterfuges, by which some people evade the constraints of the law and the prescriptions of societal obligation, must be firmly condemned because they are incompatible with the requirements of JUSTICE. Much care should be taken to promote institutions that improve the conditions of human life.
I figured it would be best if I brought this up before you try and bludgeon me with it. I in no way support avoiding the constraints of societal obligation. Render unto... and all that. However, I also see that this is an admonition to all those who do not give to charity under the belief that it is someone else's responsibility. (e.g. Let the rich man pay for it and let's tax him more so that he will.)
And I notice this line Much care should be taken to promote institutions that improve the conditions of human life.
Institutions that improve the conditions of life do not always include government. Many of us have a justifiable belief that strong federal programs ultimately act counter to the positive conditions of human life. You do not brook any argument against your socialistic answers and dismiss us as greedy for not supporting your view point.
Society ensures SOCIAL JUSTICE when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation.
Notice that this talks about associations and does not imply government in particular, so we who advocate for non-governmental solutions are not particularly violating this aspect. In fact, this is a major tenant of people who advocate libertarian views, namely that government exists to allow associates or individuals to obtain their due, not to regulate behavior and action through force.
There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and SOCIAL disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against SOCIAL JUSTICE, equity, human dignity, as well as SOCIAL and international peace.
I have the biggest problem with this particular point in that it is probably the main justification that one uses to enforce confiscatory policies in the name of social justice. It is precisely because Christ did not advocate any confiscation of goods from anyone that I think this oversteps the Christian mandate. More on that later.
The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with 'communism' or 'socialism.' She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of 'capitalism,' individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.[Cf. CA 10; 13; 44.] Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of SOCIAL bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails SOCIAL JUSTICE, for 'there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.'[CA 34.] Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
In this lies the crux of the debate. Just how much "central planning" and how much "free market" is correct? And more importantly, are we as Christians not free to disagree on those degrees? According to you, we are not since you are intent on challenging my Christian walk because I disagree with you on the levels of each. In fact, I am not looking to a market solution fully either. I just disdain the socialist answer to the failure of the market. It does not have to be an either/or. I do favor reasonable regulation of the marketplace. It is the over-regulation of the marketplace that I view as making health care unobtainable for many.
Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the SOCIAL witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of JUSTICE and charity.
I submit that you are not living up to this standard. You appear to using calumny and detraction when you accuse me of being legalistic a Pharisee and your claims that I use my theology to buttress my politics, implying that I attempt to justify my faith to support my greedy politics. You of course are pure as Christ in your noble pursuit of care for the children. I think there are not too few verses that your pastor can show you that might direct you toward a confessional if you would only show him just what you are saying to a fellow Christian. You do not show respect for me, and it is evident in your constant backhanded insults.
t is necessary that all members of society meet the demands of JUSTICE and charity in this domain. They should help, through the means of SOCIAL communication, in the formation and diffusion of sound public opinion.'[IM 8.] Solidarity is a consequence of genuine and right communication and the free circulation of ideas that further knowledge and respect for others.
I guess that free circulation of ideas is a one way street for you. You have no interest in debating the topics but rather, when faced with arguments that run counter to your belief ascribe to us motivations to suit your justification for discounting us as uncaring individuals not truly interested in resolving a societal problem.
Society has a right to information based on truth, freedom, and JUSTICE. One should practice moderation and discipline in the use of the SOCIAL communications media.
I hope you take the time to read this a few more times and ask your spiritual advisor to read your comments and critique your words in light of this guideline.
You have stated where the source for you belief comes from, though I find it insufficient to explain why you favor only government solutions rather than being open to other options that might solve the same problem. I will give you MY theology that drives my approach to charity and service to Christ.
Ultimately I believe that God directs his command to us personally. The 10 commandments are personal commandments, and everything that Christ commanded was to us personally. Even his examples were always of a personal nature. At no time was any one human responsible to direct the faith response of another individual nor take action with another person�s resources against his will. God created us with free will, and thus it is entirely up to us how we respond to His commands. From Adam on we were free to accept or reject God�s commands. Jonah was free to not go to Nineveh, though God did make it a bit uncomfortable for him, Jonah still was free to reject the command. When Christ told the rich young ruler to give up his goods, the man chose not to. I saw no place where Christ directed the Disciples to confiscate the wealth the rich man had to feed the poor though there was far more social injustice and incredible poverty than we see in most of the world today.
In God and Christ we have the model under which we should expect to operate. Though God, with the wave of a finger could end all suffering, or even compel all mankind to be generous and kind, still He does not. And Christ could have feed all the poor, not just the 5000, he could have healed all men, not just the ones whom he chose. Still, He did not. Why is it that we, as Christians can take on a role of compulsion that God himself did not display?
I do not think that my position negates the social justice tenant of the Catholic Church. What I disagree with are not the views so much as the methods and the justifications used. I agree that people must be able to access food, shelter, work and care for their health, and we need to insure that our systems do not exploit people for the gain of others. I just disagree that socialistic methods are the means to accomplish that. No matter how noble the cause, violating God�s principles in the pursuit of those goals will bring dishonor on Christ�s people.
I have emailed you a link to my church�s website in case you nee d more bludgeons on which to pummel me.
Let me close by saying that I continue to resent you implications of my greed. You know nothing of my faith response to the needy, and until you now me personally and can judge me, you are out of line.
There have always been "poor" and there always will be. The voluntary generosity of Catholics and others have served them well, even though not perfectly.
But there IS no perfect and for you to imagine there is, is childish.
Question for grown-ups: Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?
" Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?? "
" Are Democrats capable of putting down the human shields and answering the question?? "
" And what about Republicans?? "
" Who represents the truly needy?? "
" Who represents the taxpayers, the future generations, who would be forced to send their hard-earned money to fund a massive, middle-class entitlement expansion? "
As I understand your positions, government is entirely out of providing any assistance to a needy child, am I correct? The only way that the child can get assistance is private charity which is an individual voluntary contribution made by willing givers? I asked the simple question of what if there are not enough voluntary givers in the private charitable world you two envsion?
If, Bush has a bill presented to him which does not provide insurance to families making $83,000, but to a child in need. Sorry, Ragnar, I have defined need as per the poverty defintion of the US Census bureau. If Bush signs, this bill, then is he in your world wrong for signing this bill and thus in your world, immoral?
Oh, Eyago, thanks for the link, I will read about your faith. You said:
"I agree that people must be able to access food, shelter, work and care for their health, and we need to insure that our systems do not exploit people for the gain of others. I just disagree that socialistic methods are the means to accomplish that. No matter how noble the cause, violating God�s principles in the pursuit of those goals will bring dishonor on Christ�s people."
So, are you in agreement that a needy child should have access to health care. Are you defining then, any government attempt to help this child as socialist? Are you saying that if all private efforts fail to help this child, the government should be PREVENTED from helping the child?
You also said:
"You continue to foment division and strive rather than to seek community. You continue to use names and ad-hominems contrary to your own cited source for your justification of your view on social justice."
I foment division, goodness, maybe you missed some the names that Nancy and I have been called for simply asking the question of how to help needy children. The examples used were of people who might be engaging in fraud or might not qualify for assistance, but the simply question is should needy children get assistance?
Ragnar, you are so over the top in your arguments. Blessings, just enjoy your earthly life.
Eyago, I thank you for info on your church. I will study it.
I am off to the theater.
Posted by: WVH on October 12, 2007 05:31 PMAs I understand your positions, government is entirely out of providing any assistance to a needy child, am I correct? The only way that the child can get assistance is private charity which is an individual voluntary contribution made by willing givers? I asked the simple question of what if there are not enough voluntary givers in the private charitable world you two envsion?
If you check earlier posts, I have been careful to state my objections to federal involvement in particular. Mostly that is due to my understanding of the Constitution and the founding father's intent. I am not enthralled with state involvement either but not on Constitutional grounds, but more on socialist grounds, ideology, if you will. I am less inclined to be opposed to more local community based resources since the power to abuse is also limited. I would PREFER a charity based solution to meeting ALL children's needs when their parent's cannot, but if a government program, on a local scale turns out to be effective and efficient and does not end up PROMOTING indigent behavior. The more local the charity the better chance for fiscal and personal accountability for the agency and the recipient.
If Bush signs, this bill, then is he in your world wrong for signing this bill and thus in your world, immoral?
No. You still misunderstand the distinction between making the claim that it is a command from Christ to mandate it verses a public policy choice. If Bush signed the bill I might criticize his policy choice. If he stated that all Christians should support the bill as a matter of religious duty, then I would question his understanding of the scriptures. I think it is immoral to force charity in the name of Christ, and I would tell him that if I had the opportunity.
I foment division, goodness, maybe you missed some the names that Nancy and I have been called for simply asking the question of how to help needy children.
So if all your friends jump off a bridge.... I am sure people calling you names is not a pleasant thing, I kind of relate, but I am not sure that lets you off the hook for your particular brand of ad-hominem.
Try again.
Ragnar, you are so over the top in your arguments.
By whose definitions? Yours?
Oh please. You have yet to make any argument without resorting to insult. Do you honestly think your opinion matters in the least? As I remarked earlier (and often!), your capacity for self-delusion is nothing short of astounding.
As for your "blessings", that's just a bit too left-coast New Age for me.
However, I absolutely do enjoy my "earthly life" and I intend to enjoy my non-"earthy life" with God even more.
God Bless you and may He give you the wisdom you so desperately crave.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 12, 2007 07:04 PMAnd we've covered this.
No, there probably will NEVER ever be enough. It's not a perfect world. You were never promised a perfect world.
BUT, again as we've covered, ad infinitum, by forcing our "contribution" in the form of confiscatory taxes, you will guarantee that the amounts provided for charities will go down while the number of "needy" will rise.
Keep the government out of it. If it's necessary for the government to rescue those in dire needs, and yes it probably IS necessary occasionally, then have inviolable limits in place defining dire.
Why do you have so little faith in the generosity of others?
Why do you think so little of your fellow humans?
Why are you so sure that need will ever outpace that generosity?
Why are you so willing to abdicate your freedom to save and donate your own money to a government that has proven itself proficient at waste?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 12, 2007 07:27 PMBack from the theater. I volunteer and I do not think so little of my fellow humans or those with faith or little faith. Maybe, it is the particular volunteer activities I choose, both faith-based by the way. The people running those programs have a vastly different perspective than both of you.
Now, regarding what you feel are ad hominem attacks, I entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. Heck, I've been called smarmy, a socialist, and I have been told that my interpretation of my faith is false. So, what, that is your opinion. This site is a lot of fun and occasionally a rational thought emerges. One cannot be thin-skinned and post here. Can't say I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt, it would be a false apology.
The fact of the matter is the disagreement of the principle is about as deep as the two sides of the abortion issue. I am for the principle of helping needy children, I am not as tied to how that is to be accomplished as you. I volunteer at agencies helping those that are needy, not scammers of the system as the two of you seem to envision. I know that quote that the poor will be with us always, I suppose if there is a way to alievate the suffering, that should be done.
The "socialists" of the world which according to Ragnar is probably anyone that disagrees with him on whether at times government intervention may be necessary and you are just not going to agree on this issue. Oh well, next thread.
The SIFF will begin showing the documentary Lake of Fire on October 19 and that is a look at the abortion issue from both sides. If one is going to convince women not to choose abortion as a solution, there has to be support for the choice of delivering the child and there has to be support for that child.
Posted by: WVH on October 12, 2007 10:09 PM